Re: [PATCH 0/9] Add library mode to source builtin

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/7/24 1:42 PM, Kerin Millar wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2024, at 3:27 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 5/5/24 3:39 PM, Kerin Millar wrote:
> >
> > > Such is the extent to which I concur that I find even -l to be irritating.
> >
> > The option character isn't important. Is it useful to have an additional
>
> If it were of no importance at all, once might then choose the character 
> entirely at random. That's not usually what happens.

The issue is whether one is needed at all, not whether or not one character
irritates you.

> > option to `source' that forces it to use $BASH_SOURCE_PATH, or should that
> > behave like other builtins ($CDPATH, $BASH_LOADABLES_PATH)?
>
> If BASH_SOURCE_PATH is to be able to take its value from the environment, it 
> might be useful.

That's the standard behavior, with only a few exceptions.


> That is, to have a means of opting in may be sensible from a backward-
> compatibility standpoint, whether it be in the form of an option character, a 
> shell option or something else. Otherwise, probably not. I'm thinking of the 
> theoretical case in which a user exports BASH_SOURCE_PATH then runs existing 
> scripts - not necessarily of their own design - that weren't counting on this 
> feature to ever exist.

You can export CDPATH and get the same effect with `cd', or export PATH and
modify command search order.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/