Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:16:01 +0100 From: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> To: Manish Jain <bourne.identity@hotmail.com>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is there any difference between 'source <path>' and '. <path>' ? Message-ID: <7e342c74-cb49-c2e4-af37-35eb9e7561c0@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: <VI1PR02MB1200E1F932D3888B05A03275F6950@VI1PR02MB1200.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> References: <VI1PR02MB1200E1F932D3888B05A03275F6950@VI1PR02MB1200.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/09/2017 16:03, Manish Jain wrote: > > Hi, > > I used to be under the impression that 'source <path>' was fully > equivalent to '. <path>' : both executed <path> under the current shell. > (At least under Bourne shell derivatives) > > But a few days back, I came across an instance where source fails while > invocation with period succeeds. > > So I feel inclined to ask whether the 2 mean the same or not ? '.' is Bourne shell, 'source' is C shell. bash might allow source as well as ., but it's not strict Bourne shell if it does. -- An amusing coincidence: log2(58) = 5.858 (to 0.0003% accuracy).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7e342c74-cb49-c2e4-af37-35eb9e7561c0>