On 7/3/24 2:37 PM, konsolebox wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 10:56 PM Chet Ramey <[email protected]> wrote:On 6/26/24 5:59 AM, konsolebox wrote:On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:14 PM Chet Ramey <[email protected]> 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-patchShould 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 [email protected] http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
