Re: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add import builtin

[Phi Debian]

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 7:28 AM Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira <
matheus@matheusmoreira.com> wrote:

> Yet the feature has been described as "irritating"!
> I really don't understand the cause for this
> and it's making me feel really unwelcome.
>

I think it is not personnal, you proposed something, and other told you
what you propose is overkill due to the simplicity to do the same with no
change in bash, and a 1liner of code in your top level project file.

Your proposition could not be 'builtin', you want a new 'model' with
'packages/module' (not saying library on purpose, way too much for me).
Starting from there your model need at least an init line to say you want
bash operating in your model 'packages/module'. Form there your new model
can be initialized with a 1liner, either a dynloadable builtin (.so file
you provide), or an init file (.sh no +x) you source. At this point
whatever technic, you have your 'import'. Is that big of a deal to ask your
developers to comply with your model and init your 'packages/module'
paradigm bringing 'import' in a 1 line in their top script (here script
mean +x executable bash source file).

TBH, I have a packages system for both bash and ksh since decades, they all
start by an init line at top level, and they never required any shell hack,
and they do far more that intended here, repos, versioning, dependencis,
multi-arch (run time context) etc...

I think it is very good to be enthusiastic about hacking a free software, a
good start point is to fix bugs, even tiny one, even simple docco.

Another option is to create a fork of a project (here bash) implement your
hack, provide it (github kind) then see the stats, if your new bash
skyrocket, may be your hack will be back ported. You could  adverstise your
new bash in stko, each one asking for a package manager in bash you could
reply with your new invention, boosting the stats.

All that to say, I am not too sure that distro (and installer of all sort)
will be willing to get a fatter bash for higher risk of bugs, hack, secu,
name it, and would surely ask this feature to be optional, then always
requiring an init line to enable it.

So I guess it will take a long time before seeing that in the shell, but I
may be wrong.