Honestly, I share the same feeling as the others about the name
`library'. The use of the ``library'' feels something wrong in this
context.
I still think the variable name should be BASH_SOURCE_PATH. I've
suggested `-l' as an *example*, but that's just because I couldn't
come up with another lett
> Libraries are 'compiled collection of object module', can be static/dynamic,
> dynamic imply a runtime load.
By this definition, dynamic languages and scripting languages don't have
libraries.
They clearly do have libraries. Sometimes they're called modules but it's the
same thing.
> This is
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 5:43 AM Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira <
math...@matheusmoreira.com> wrote:
> > I think every single use of the term "library" in this whole endeavor
> > is misleading and misguided.
>
> I don't think so. A library is just a logical collection of code and data
> that you can
> Such is the extent to which I concur that I find even -l to be irritating.
Well, I don't concur at all. I think it's just the opposite.
I think it's actually the source builtin which incorrectly
implies that all sourced scripts are executables
when they might actually be libraries and modules.
> I think every single use of the term "library" in this whole endeavor
> is misleading and misguided.
I don't think so. A library is just a logical collection of code and data
that you can use to implement software. This is a mechanism meant
to load those libraries separately from executables.
T
