On Tue, May 30, 2023, 22:47 Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 15:28:57 -0400 > From: Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> > Message-ID: <ad399376-280e-bcdd-1aff-740f1a6ea...@case.edu> > > | Hmmmm. That's not the only option. How about we load it if found but > mark > | it as not enabled? It will still take `enable -d' to delete it. > > That wouldn't match the man page, and isn't really rational. > > The man page says: > > The -f option means to load the new builtin command name from > shared object filename, on systems that support dynamic loading. > > and > > If no options are supplied and a name is not a shell builtin, > enable will attempt to load name from a shared object named name, > as if the command were ``enable -f name name . > > That's all it says about loading anything. So to load something, > either -f needs to be used, or no options be given. > > Of -n: > > If -n is used, each name is disabled; otherwise, names are enabled. > > which is fine, but says nothing about loading anything (but is an option, > so if -n is given, we are not in the "no options" case). Nor does it > say what happens in that case if name isn't a builtin - so that could > either just be ignored (like unset does for vars not set) or be an > error, either would be OK. > > For the behaviour you're suggesting, I'd expect the usage to be > > enable -fn name > > which should load name (if it can be found, of course) and disable > it (though I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to do that). > > kre >
sorry .. cant read much text .. i be for newering , i understand mismatches but somewhen u gotta have them all .. peace >
