[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH
From: |
konsolebox |
Subject: |
Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Jul 2024 04:52:11 +0800 |
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 2:54 AM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:
> 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.
Perhaps vanilla scripts, libraries and frameworks can survive with
just the main file resolving to the real path. The coder just has to
make sure all paths specified to '.' or source are full paths. But I
think it's better to be consistent. It comes with fewer surprises and
usage rules.
--
konsolebox
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Chet Ramey, 2024/07/01
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, konsolebox, 2024/07/03
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Chet Ramey, 2024/07/03
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH,
konsolebox <=
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, alex xmb sw ratchev, 2024/07/03
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Chet Ramey, 2024/07/07
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, alex xmb sw ratchev, 2024/07/07
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Greg Wooledge, 2024/07/07
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Chet Ramey, 2024/07/10
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, konsolebox, 2024/07/11
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Chet Ramey, 2024/07/18
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, konsolebox, 2024/07/18
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, Chet Ramey, 2024/07/25
- Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH, alex xmb sw ratchev, 2024/07/29