Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/14/24 2:08 AM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
> I wholeheartedly support the introduction of BASH_SOURCE_PATH, but I would
> like to suggest three tweaks to its semantics.
>
> A common pattern is to unpack a script with its associated library & config
> files into a new directory, which then leaves a problem locating the
> library files whose paths are only known relative to $0 (or
> ${BASH_SOURCE[0]}).

That assumes a flat directory structure for the script and its associated
files, correct? How common is that really? Or is it more common to have
something like the script in somewhere/bin, files to be sourced in
somewhere/lib, and so on?

> 1. I therefore propose that where a relative path appears in
> BASH_SOURCE_PATH, it should be taken as relative to the directory
> containing $0 (after resolving symlinks), rather than relative to $PWD.

Is this pattern really common enough to break with existing behavior
like you propose?

--
``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/