Why was the dot (.) used as an alias for source & why don't other commands have shortcuts too? [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
3
down vote

favorite












EDIT : actually, it is not an alias (see answers)



As you all know, in a shell, the dot-command (.) is an alias to the source command.



But I wonder if there's a reason behind such a weird alias? Apparently, I don't use it so often that I would need such a short alias.



So, why a dot? And why for source and not a more commonly used command such as cd or ls? Why even an alias? Is there a good reason behind that? Or is there a historical reason?



NOTE: I originally posted this question on Server Fault but I was suggested to post it here instead.







share|improve this question













closed as primarily opinion-based by slm♦ Jul 29 at 3:35


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 4




    You actually have it backwards
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 19:51






  • 2




    . is not an alias in the first place; nor is it a secondary name. This question takes a falsehood as its premise and, as demonstrated by the answers so far, is unanswerable except to say that the question is wrong, as such loaded questions are.
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:11










  • @JdeBP Actually, I tried alias source and alias . in order to know which one was the alias of the other but got no response from the command line. Now I understand why. Hence, I supposed that . was the alias because it was the shortest. I edited the question to make it clearer that the question is actually wrong. I did not change the title because it would change the meaning of the answers.
    – Arnaud Denoyelle
    Jul 28 at 22:16










  • The next question can be found in the list that I collected two years ago at superuser.com/questions/1136409/#comment1631506_1136409 . (-:
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:29










  • Possible duplicate - unix.stackexchange.com/questions/58514/…
    – slm♦
    Jul 29 at 2:54
















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












EDIT : actually, it is not an alias (see answers)



As you all know, in a shell, the dot-command (.) is an alias to the source command.



But I wonder if there's a reason behind such a weird alias? Apparently, I don't use it so often that I would need such a short alias.



So, why a dot? And why for source and not a more commonly used command such as cd or ls? Why even an alias? Is there a good reason behind that? Or is there a historical reason?



NOTE: I originally posted this question on Server Fault but I was suggested to post it here instead.







share|improve this question













closed as primarily opinion-based by slm♦ Jul 29 at 3:35


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.










  • 4




    You actually have it backwards
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 19:51






  • 2




    . is not an alias in the first place; nor is it a secondary name. This question takes a falsehood as its premise and, as demonstrated by the answers so far, is unanswerable except to say that the question is wrong, as such loaded questions are.
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:11










  • @JdeBP Actually, I tried alias source and alias . in order to know which one was the alias of the other but got no response from the command line. Now I understand why. Hence, I supposed that . was the alias because it was the shortest. I edited the question to make it clearer that the question is actually wrong. I did not change the title because it would change the meaning of the answers.
    – Arnaud Denoyelle
    Jul 28 at 22:16










  • The next question can be found in the list that I collected two years ago at superuser.com/questions/1136409/#comment1631506_1136409 . (-:
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:29










  • Possible duplicate - unix.stackexchange.com/questions/58514/…
    – slm♦
    Jul 29 at 2:54












up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











EDIT : actually, it is not an alias (see answers)



As you all know, in a shell, the dot-command (.) is an alias to the source command.



But I wonder if there's a reason behind such a weird alias? Apparently, I don't use it so often that I would need such a short alias.



So, why a dot? And why for source and not a more commonly used command such as cd or ls? Why even an alias? Is there a good reason behind that? Or is there a historical reason?



NOTE: I originally posted this question on Server Fault but I was suggested to post it here instead.







share|improve this question













EDIT : actually, it is not an alias (see answers)



As you all know, in a shell, the dot-command (.) is an alias to the source command.



But I wonder if there's a reason behind such a weird alias? Apparently, I don't use it so often that I would need such a short alias.



So, why a dot? And why for source and not a more commonly used command such as cd or ls? Why even an alias? Is there a good reason behind that? Or is there a historical reason?



NOTE: I originally posted this question on Server Fault but I was suggested to post it here instead.









share|improve this question












share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jul 29 at 3:32









slm♦

232k65479649




232k65479649









asked Jul 28 at 19:50









Arnaud Denoyelle

1244




1244




closed as primarily opinion-based by slm♦ Jul 29 at 3:35


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






closed as primarily opinion-based by slm♦ Jul 29 at 3:35


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 4




    You actually have it backwards
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 19:51






  • 2




    . is not an alias in the first place; nor is it a secondary name. This question takes a falsehood as its premise and, as demonstrated by the answers so far, is unanswerable except to say that the question is wrong, as such loaded questions are.
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:11










  • @JdeBP Actually, I tried alias source and alias . in order to know which one was the alias of the other but got no response from the command line. Now I understand why. Hence, I supposed that . was the alias because it was the shortest. I edited the question to make it clearer that the question is actually wrong. I did not change the title because it would change the meaning of the answers.
    – Arnaud Denoyelle
    Jul 28 at 22:16










  • The next question can be found in the list that I collected two years ago at superuser.com/questions/1136409/#comment1631506_1136409 . (-:
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:29










  • Possible duplicate - unix.stackexchange.com/questions/58514/…
    – slm♦
    Jul 29 at 2:54












  • 4




    You actually have it backwards
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 19:51






  • 2




    . is not an alias in the first place; nor is it a secondary name. This question takes a falsehood as its premise and, as demonstrated by the answers so far, is unanswerable except to say that the question is wrong, as such loaded questions are.
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:11










  • @JdeBP Actually, I tried alias source and alias . in order to know which one was the alias of the other but got no response from the command line. Now I understand why. Hence, I supposed that . was the alias because it was the shortest. I edited the question to make it clearer that the question is actually wrong. I did not change the title because it would change the meaning of the answers.
    – Arnaud Denoyelle
    Jul 28 at 22:16










  • The next question can be found in the list that I collected two years ago at superuser.com/questions/1136409/#comment1631506_1136409 . (-:
    – JdeBP
    Jul 28 at 22:29










  • Possible duplicate - unix.stackexchange.com/questions/58514/…
    – slm♦
    Jul 29 at 2:54







4




4




You actually have it backwards
– Jesse_b
Jul 28 at 19:51




You actually have it backwards
– Jesse_b
Jul 28 at 19:51




2




2




. is not an alias in the first place; nor is it a secondary name. This question takes a falsehood as its premise and, as demonstrated by the answers so far, is unanswerable except to say that the question is wrong, as such loaded questions are.
– JdeBP
Jul 28 at 22:11




. is not an alias in the first place; nor is it a secondary name. This question takes a falsehood as its premise and, as demonstrated by the answers so far, is unanswerable except to say that the question is wrong, as such loaded questions are.
– JdeBP
Jul 28 at 22:11












@JdeBP Actually, I tried alias source and alias . in order to know which one was the alias of the other but got no response from the command line. Now I understand why. Hence, I supposed that . was the alias because it was the shortest. I edited the question to make it clearer that the question is actually wrong. I did not change the title because it would change the meaning of the answers.
– Arnaud Denoyelle
Jul 28 at 22:16




@JdeBP Actually, I tried alias source and alias . in order to know which one was the alias of the other but got no response from the command line. Now I understand why. Hence, I supposed that . was the alias because it was the shortest. I edited the question to make it clearer that the question is actually wrong. I did not change the title because it would change the meaning of the answers.
– Arnaud Denoyelle
Jul 28 at 22:16












The next question can be found in the list that I collected two years ago at superuser.com/questions/1136409/#comment1631506_1136409 . (-:
– JdeBP
Jul 28 at 22:29




The next question can be found in the list that I collected two years ago at superuser.com/questions/1136409/#comment1631506_1136409 . (-:
– JdeBP
Jul 28 at 22:29












Possible duplicate - unix.stackexchange.com/questions/58514/…
– slm♦
Jul 29 at 2:54




Possible duplicate - unix.stackexchange.com/questions/58514/…
– slm♦
Jul 29 at 2:54










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote



accepted










. is the POSIX standard.



source is a bash builtin synonym for . and is not as portable as .



Also note in the Bash reference manual . is listed under 4.1 Bourne Shell Builtins and source is listed under 4.2 Bash Builtin Commands as:




A synonym for . (see Bourne Shell Builtins).




It's possible that bash named it source because that's what it was called in C shell (where the command apparently originated).






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
    – schily
    Jul 28 at 21:45







  • 1




    @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 21:46






  • 1




    @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 21:57






  • 1




    Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 22:04






  • 1




    @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 22:05

















up vote
1
down vote













The dot command was introduced by the Bourne Shell most likely in 1976.



The source command was introduced by the csh in 1977 or 1978.



So there is not an alias relation but two different names for an "invention" at the same time.



BTW: I can tell you why cd is named this way. The command previously had been called chdir, but this was too long (slow to type) for the upcoming 110 Baud modems in 1974...






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
    – xenoid
    Jul 29 at 0:21










  • source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
    – schily
    Jul 29 at 7:44

















up vote
0
down vote













As far as Bash is concerned the . and source are not aliases for one or the other, it's a simple fact that they're both builtins which call the same underlying function, source_builtin.



Take a look at the source.def file from the Bash source code:



$PRODUCES source.c

$BUILTIN source
$FUNCTION source_builtin
$SHORT_DOC source filename [arguments]
Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
when FILENAME is executed.

Exit Status:
Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
FILENAME cannot be read.
$END

$BUILTIN .
$DOCNAME dot
$FUNCTION source_builtin
$SHORT_DOC . filename [arguments]
Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
when FILENAME is executed.

Exit Status:
Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
FILENAME cannot be read.
$END


References



  • path: root/builtins/source.def

  • What is the difference between “source” and “.”?





share|improve this answer




























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    10
    down vote



    accepted










    . is the POSIX standard.



    source is a bash builtin synonym for . and is not as portable as .



    Also note in the Bash reference manual . is listed under 4.1 Bourne Shell Builtins and source is listed under 4.2 Bash Builtin Commands as:




    A synonym for . (see Bourne Shell Builtins).




    It's possible that bash named it source because that's what it was called in C shell (where the command apparently originated).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
      – schily
      Jul 28 at 21:45







    • 1




      @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
      – Jesse_b
      Jul 28 at 21:46






    • 1




      @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 21:57






    • 1




      Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:04






    • 1




      @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:05














    up vote
    10
    down vote



    accepted










    . is the POSIX standard.



    source is a bash builtin synonym for . and is not as portable as .



    Also note in the Bash reference manual . is listed under 4.1 Bourne Shell Builtins and source is listed under 4.2 Bash Builtin Commands as:




    A synonym for . (see Bourne Shell Builtins).




    It's possible that bash named it source because that's what it was called in C shell (where the command apparently originated).






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
      – schily
      Jul 28 at 21:45







    • 1




      @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
      – Jesse_b
      Jul 28 at 21:46






    • 1




      @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 21:57






    • 1




      Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:04






    • 1




      @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:05












    up vote
    10
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    10
    down vote



    accepted






    . is the POSIX standard.



    source is a bash builtin synonym for . and is not as portable as .



    Also note in the Bash reference manual . is listed under 4.1 Bourne Shell Builtins and source is listed under 4.2 Bash Builtin Commands as:




    A synonym for . (see Bourne Shell Builtins).




    It's possible that bash named it source because that's what it was called in C shell (where the command apparently originated).






    share|improve this answer















    . is the POSIX standard.



    source is a bash builtin synonym for . and is not as portable as .



    Also note in the Bash reference manual . is listed under 4.1 Bourne Shell Builtins and source is listed under 4.2 Bash Builtin Commands as:




    A synonym for . (see Bourne Shell Builtins).




    It's possible that bash named it source because that's what it was called in C shell (where the command apparently originated).







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jul 28 at 21:05


























    answered Jul 28 at 19:59









    Jesse_b

    10.1k12658




    10.1k12658







    • 1




      Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
      – schily
      Jul 28 at 21:45







    • 1




      @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
      – Jesse_b
      Jul 28 at 21:46






    • 1




      @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 21:57






    • 1




      Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:04






    • 1




      @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:05












    • 1




      Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
      – schily
      Jul 28 at 21:45







    • 1




      @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
      – Jesse_b
      Jul 28 at 21:46






    • 1




      @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 21:57






    • 1




      Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:04






    • 1




      @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
      – Croad Langshan
      Jul 28 at 22:05







    1




    1




    Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
    – schily
    Jul 28 at 21:45





    Your answer is not correct, sorry. Dot is from the Bourne Shell and source is from csh, see my answer.
    – schily
    Jul 28 at 21:45





    1




    1




    @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 21:46




    @schily: Where did I say something contrary?
    – Jesse_b
    Jul 28 at 21:46




    1




    1




    @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 21:57




    @Jesse_b: he's saying that POSIX was introduced in the eighties, but dot predates that by a decade or so. So if you want to know why dot and not something else, POSIX doesn't explain that. Right, everybody? Actually I don't think schily's answer answers the question either, as written: it doesn't say anything about why "." was chosen rather than some other name.
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 21:57




    1




    1




    Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 22:04




    Really seems the primary question here is So, why a dot?, and your other question is a duplicate. I'm genuinely not sure which if any of the subsidiary questions (which I think you would have better chosen to comment on or ignore) you're answering here...
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 22:04




    1




    1




    @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 22:05




    @JdeBP yes I saw the other question, I just think you both misinterpreted this one.
    – Croad Langshan
    Jul 28 at 22:05












    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The dot command was introduced by the Bourne Shell most likely in 1976.



    The source command was introduced by the csh in 1977 or 1978.



    So there is not an alias relation but two different names for an "invention" at the same time.



    BTW: I can tell you why cd is named this way. The command previously had been called chdir, but this was too long (slow to type) for the upcoming 110 Baud modems in 1974...






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3




      source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
      – xenoid
      Jul 29 at 0:21










    • source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
      – schily
      Jul 29 at 7:44














    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The dot command was introduced by the Bourne Shell most likely in 1976.



    The source command was introduced by the csh in 1977 or 1978.



    So there is not an alias relation but two different names for an "invention" at the same time.



    BTW: I can tell you why cd is named this way. The command previously had been called chdir, but this was too long (slow to type) for the upcoming 110 Baud modems in 1974...






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3




      source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
      – xenoid
      Jul 29 at 0:21










    • source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
      – schily
      Jul 29 at 7:44












    up vote
    1
    down vote










    up vote
    1
    down vote









    The dot command was introduced by the Bourne Shell most likely in 1976.



    The source command was introduced by the csh in 1977 or 1978.



    So there is not an alias relation but two different names for an "invention" at the same time.



    BTW: I can tell you why cd is named this way. The command previously had been called chdir, but this was too long (slow to type) for the upcoming 110 Baud modems in 1974...






    share|improve this answer















    The dot command was introduced by the Bourne Shell most likely in 1976.



    The source command was introduced by the csh in 1977 or 1978.



    So there is not an alias relation but two different names for an "invention" at the same time.



    BTW: I can tell you why cd is named this way. The command previously had been called chdir, but this was too long (slow to type) for the upcoming 110 Baud modems in 1974...







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jul 29 at 2:24









    slm♦

    232k65479649




    232k65479649











    answered Jul 28 at 21:39









    schily

    8,39221435




    8,39221435







    • 3




      source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
      – xenoid
      Jul 29 at 0:21










    • source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
      – schily
      Jul 29 at 7:44












    • 3




      source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
      – xenoid
      Jul 29 at 0:21










    • source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
      – schily
      Jul 29 at 7:44







    3




    3




    source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
    – xenoid
    Jul 29 at 0:21




    source could be even older, since it was a command in the Michigan terminal system.
    – xenoid
    Jul 29 at 0:21












    source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
    – schily
    Jul 29 at 7:44




    source is an obvious name, but I doubt that Bill Joy did know the MTS.
    – schily
    Jul 29 at 7:44










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    As far as Bash is concerned the . and source are not aliases for one or the other, it's a simple fact that they're both builtins which call the same underlying function, source_builtin.



    Take a look at the source.def file from the Bash source code:



    $PRODUCES source.c

    $BUILTIN source
    $FUNCTION source_builtin
    $SHORT_DOC source filename [arguments]
    Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

    Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
    entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
    If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
    when FILENAME is executed.

    Exit Status:
    Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
    FILENAME cannot be read.
    $END

    $BUILTIN .
    $DOCNAME dot
    $FUNCTION source_builtin
    $SHORT_DOC . filename [arguments]
    Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

    Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
    entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
    If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
    when FILENAME is executed.

    Exit Status:
    Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
    FILENAME cannot be read.
    $END


    References



    • path: root/builtins/source.def

    • What is the difference between “source” and “.”?





    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      As far as Bash is concerned the . and source are not aliases for one or the other, it's a simple fact that they're both builtins which call the same underlying function, source_builtin.



      Take a look at the source.def file from the Bash source code:



      $PRODUCES source.c

      $BUILTIN source
      $FUNCTION source_builtin
      $SHORT_DOC source filename [arguments]
      Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

      Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
      entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
      If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
      when FILENAME is executed.

      Exit Status:
      Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
      FILENAME cannot be read.
      $END

      $BUILTIN .
      $DOCNAME dot
      $FUNCTION source_builtin
      $SHORT_DOC . filename [arguments]
      Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

      Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
      entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
      If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
      when FILENAME is executed.

      Exit Status:
      Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
      FILENAME cannot be read.
      $END


      References



      • path: root/builtins/source.def

      • What is the difference between “source” and “.”?





      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        As far as Bash is concerned the . and source are not aliases for one or the other, it's a simple fact that they're both builtins which call the same underlying function, source_builtin.



        Take a look at the source.def file from the Bash source code:



        $PRODUCES source.c

        $BUILTIN source
        $FUNCTION source_builtin
        $SHORT_DOC source filename [arguments]
        Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

        Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
        entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
        If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
        when FILENAME is executed.

        Exit Status:
        Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
        FILENAME cannot be read.
        $END

        $BUILTIN .
        $DOCNAME dot
        $FUNCTION source_builtin
        $SHORT_DOC . filename [arguments]
        Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

        Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
        entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
        If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
        when FILENAME is executed.

        Exit Status:
        Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
        FILENAME cannot be read.
        $END


        References



        • path: root/builtins/source.def

        • What is the difference between “source” and “.”?





        share|improve this answer













        As far as Bash is concerned the . and source are not aliases for one or the other, it's a simple fact that they're both builtins which call the same underlying function, source_builtin.



        Take a look at the source.def file from the Bash source code:



        $PRODUCES source.c

        $BUILTIN source
        $FUNCTION source_builtin
        $SHORT_DOC source filename [arguments]
        Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

        Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
        entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
        If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
        when FILENAME is executed.

        Exit Status:
        Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
        FILENAME cannot be read.
        $END

        $BUILTIN .
        $DOCNAME dot
        $FUNCTION source_builtin
        $SHORT_DOC . filename [arguments]
        Execute commands from a file in the current shell.

        Read and execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell. The
        entries in $PATH are used to find the directory containing FILENAME.
        If any ARGUMENTS are supplied, they become the positional parameters
        when FILENAME is executed.

        Exit Status:
        Returns the status of the last command executed in FILENAME; fails if
        FILENAME cannot be read.
        $END


        References



        • path: root/builtins/source.def

        • What is the difference between “source” and “.”?






        share|improve this answer













        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer











        answered Jul 29 at 2:37









        slm♦

        232k65479649




        232k65479649












            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Bahrain

            Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay