Skip to main content
deleted 7 characters in body
Source Link
ilkkachu
  • 147.8k
  • 11
  • 22

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead. Though already exists, though it's only been used by Jeff.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.

Or just remove altogether if both and exist (are kept)?

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead. Though already exists, though it's only been used by Jeff.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.

Or just remove altogether if both and exist (are kept)?

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead. Though already exists, it's only been used by Jeff.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.

Or just remove altogether if both and exist (are kept)?

added 184 characters in body
Source Link
ilkkachu
  • 147.8k
  • 11
  • 22

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead. Though already exists, though it's only been used by Jeff.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.

Or just remove altogether if both and exist (are kept)?

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead. Though already exists, though it's only been used by Jeff.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.

Or just remove altogether if both and exist (are kept)?

Source Link
ilkkachu
  • 147.8k
  • 11
  • 22

I don't think it makes sense to have a tag for the shell builtin source specifically. It's not that special a feature that it wouldn't just fit under (or , which is what most of those are tagged with anyway). Besides, source isn't even a standard command. For POSIX-compatibility, it should be instead.

It would probably be best to make the main tag and an alias to make it more clear what it's about.