On Thu, Feb 3, 2022, 04:20 Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: > Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:18:08 -0800 > From: L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> > Message-ID: <61fb2d50.7010...@tlinx.org> > > | My posix non-conformance issue has to do with bash not starting with > | aliases enabled by default in all default invocations. > > If you're using aliases in scripts, then just stop doing that. >
u're tralla There's no need for it, it just makes your script harder to > follow. Simply expand any aliases you"d use interactively, > and you will no longer care about this. > > aliases can be uaeful interactively, so you need to type less > (though generally functions work better and are more flexible) > but there's no excuse for that in a script. > > It's just the same with variable names - interactively I use > names like a b f ... - in a script I am much more likely to > use much more descriptive names (most good editors have a form > of macro expansion, where you get to just type a short word > and the editor expands that to a longer form - use that.) > > Most people who use aliases in scripts are simply trying to > show how clever they are, and like almost everyone who > attempts that, the result is usually the exact opposite. > > Just don't. > > kre > >
