RE: simple useful functions

[Drew Adams]

> > > (call-process shell nil t nil "-c"
> > >               (concat "source " script "; printenv"))
> > 
> > Isn't "." rather than "source" the portable idiom here?
> 
> You are correct.  "." is better.

`.' doesn't work for csh, does it?
Isn't `source' appropriate for csh?

And `man bash' shows that `source' is supported as well as `.', at least for
that flavor of `sh' (not for original `sh').  In multiple places the `bash' man
page refers to "the . or source builtins" or "the . (source) command".  And `.'
and `source' are listed together, with the same description, under `Shell
Builtin Commands'.

So what makes `.' more portable than `source'?

(But I'm no expert on this.)