On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 7:07 PM Mike Jonkmans <bash...@jonkmans.nl> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 05:23:03PM +0200, Oğuz wrote: > > 31 Ekim 2021 Pazar tarihinde Mike Jonkmans <bash...@jonkmans.nl> yazdı: > > > > > > Using the hash as alias for commands, that are not in your PATH, > > > seems risky though. > > > > Why? Risky how? > > Risky, mostly on a cognitive level. > > 'command -p foo' doesn't look like it has a side effect.
How does a command look like it has side effects? > > E.g. assume you have /usr/local/bin/foo and /bin/foo > PATH=/usr/local/bin > command -p foo > foo > > You would not think that /bin/foo is executed for foo, given the value of > PATH. I suppose I would not, because the manual doesn't say `command -p' has this effect. I'll give you that. > > It could also lead to bugs. > E.g. > PATH=/usr/local/bin > source script > foo > > When the 'command -p foo' is introduced in the sourced script, foo changes. Yes, that's how `source' works; contents of the sourced file alters the sourcing application's execution environment. In addition to calling `command -p foo', if the sourced file changes `PATH', or defines a function named `foo', or enables `expand_aliases' and defines an alias named `foo', `foo' 'changes'. > > -- > Regards, Mike Jonkmans >
