Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH

[Chet Ramey]

On 7/3/24 2:37 PM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 10:56 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> > On 6/26/24 5:59 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> > > > On 6/19/24 6:12 PM, konsolebox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alternatively, have BASH_SOURCE always produce real physical paths
> > > > > either by default or through a shopt.
> > > >
> > > > This is the best option. I don't think changing bash to do this by default
> > > > would have negative side-effects.
> > >
> > > That's great.  So will this be implemented soon or will you consider
> > > other lazy alternatives first?
> > >
> > > I already made a patch for it here:
> > > https://gist.github.com/konsolebox/a908cf13e511abdf05daec89a9cbdd8d#file-bash-source-real-patch
> >
> > Should your patch make sure that paths supplied to source/. push the full
> > pathname into BASH_SOURCE? It only handles the name of a shell script and
> > leaves the pathname associated with a shell function alone.
>
> Sorry it took me a while to reply.  Should this be enough?

So your answer is "yes." Is there anything to be gained by leaving the
pathname to source/. unchanged and just storing the full pathname of the
script file argument?

I'm looking for input from people who write shell frameworks here. The ones
who were vocal about BASH_SOURCE_PATH, since these concepts seem related.

--
``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/

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature