On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 1:15 PM Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:12:55AM +0000, Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira > wrote: > > > the schizophrenic nature of the feature > > > > First the feature was "irritating" ... Now it's "schizophrenic" ? > > I must be mentally ill for trying to contribute this? > > > > Yeah, I'm done. > > I don't think "schizophrenic" was used as an insult. Rather, it looks > like an attempt to describe the fact that everyone in the thread has a > different concept and/or experience regarding how 'source' and '.' > should work. > > Well, what I really meant was that there are 2 directions one with read/parse the other read/parse/eval and not being able to make a mind, like the Buridan ass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass 'import' read/parse (along with a PATH var) make sense and don't break interfere with source A 'source' read/parse/eval is there with its semantic and should not go away. An 'import' with source look alike and tweaking its flags and semantic is border line, besides, it and can be implemented in shell only with no bash modification, there is no perf consideration here, we are not on the perf path, unless one come up with a source in the inner loop :-) No offense, just pointing that these two path sounds not mixable, an implementation of your $BASH_SOURCE_PATH can be all done in shell in one of your libs, (say your bootstrap lib) whence this one is loaded, it can load all the others.
