Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/14/24 4:10 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 2:09 PM Martin D Kealey <martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz> wrote:
> > 1. I therefore propose that where a relative path appears in
> > BASH_SOURCE_PATH, it should be taken as relative to the directory
> > containing $0 (after resolving symlinks), rather than relative to $PWD.
>
> This implies only the directory where the main script is located will
> be used, correct?
>
> Hopefully Bash already has a deterministic way of knowing the
> directory the main script is located.

How deterministic do you need? Bash sets $0 and ${BASH_SOURCE[0]} to the
script name passed as an argument. It's easy enough to write a function
that canonicalizes that, or to use `realpath' as others have suggested.
(There is a `realpath' loadable builtin.)

Once you've canonicalized it, you can use ${FULLPATH%/*} to get the
directory name.

> > 2. Search BASH_SOURCE_PATH when any relative path is given, not just a path
> > that lacks a '/', so that libraries can be organized into subdirectories.
>
> I disagree with this.  Paths beginning with ./ or ../ should be
> considered explicit and not searched in BASH_SOURCE_PATH.

Those are absolute pathnames.

--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/