Re: Why two separate option namespaces?

[PePa]

Sounds like a useful proposal with little (no?) downsides..!

Peter


On 27/02/2560 13:08, Martijn Dekker wrote:
> It is not clear to me why bash has two separate namespaces for
> long-named shell options, handled by two separate commands.
> 
> It might make sense if 'set -o' is for POSIX options only and 'shopt'
> for bash-specific options, but that doesn't apply. I can't figure out a
> consistent basis for a distinction. This makes it a bit of a pain to
> remember which option goes with which command, e.g. that 'pipefail' goes
> with set, but 'lastpipe' goes with shopt.
> 
> What was the original reason behind this?
> 
> Since there currently are no naming conflicts between the two
> namespaces, would there be any disadvantage to simply merging them and
> allowing all options to be manipulated using either set or shopt?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - M.
>