Re: hash -d 0/1 and other hash stuff

[Mike Jonkmans]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:32:36AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 9/12/23 8:28 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > > On 9/6/23 10:55 AM, Mike Jonkmans wrote:
...
> > > > 3) These option combinations should error/exit 1:
> > > Agreed, except for
> > > >         hash -p path -t name
> > > which is valid, if ambiguous. `hash' prioritizes -t over -p in this case.
> > Why would you want to make an exception for -t?
> What exception?

"Agreed, except for" :)

> > It is the current implementation doing the prioritizing.
> This is a meaningless statement: it's always the implementation that does
> the prioritizing.

Which means that is not designed/documented as such.
As stated in the immediate next sentence:

> > Nowhere is this prioritization mentioned.
> > I don't think that any option should be ignored.
> > Nor should ambiguous commands be executed.
> I think it's better to do something useful.

I offered to write a patch. So I needed to find out, what you would accept.
But back to usefulness it is.


--
Regards, Mike Jonkmans