Op 27-02-17 om 15:32 schreef Chet Ramey: > At the time, there were already some bash-specfic additions to > `set -o' (braceexpand/histexpand/posix), but I wasn't interested in > adding twenty more.
But why not? What's the advantage to users in creating a separate category of options, seemingly based on no distinction in particular? > Since the initial shopt implementation, I have added set -o options to > correspond to existing single-letter options (-E/-T for the debugger), that > Posix requires (nolog) or options that we hoped Posix would adopt as > standard (history/pipefail). Other new functionality goes into shopt. So basically you're saying that, for options without a single-letter equivalent, "-o" options are those that are either POSIX or that you think should be POSIX? But then that distinction is more political than technical, isn't it? >> Since there currently are no naming conflicts between the two >> namespaces, would there be any disadvantage to simply merging them and >> allowing all options to be manipulated using either set or shopt? > shopt already does this. You can manipulate all of the `set -o' options > with `shopt -o'. That changes nothing, though. From a user's perspective, there are still two arbitrarily separated categories of long-name options and you still have to remember which option to set in which way. - M.
