Re:Fish Shell 3.2
by mixmastamyk on Monday March 01, 2021 @01:24PM
(#26306101)
Shebangs direct scripts to the right interpreter. Setting a default interactive shell won’t override it.
Re:Fish Shell 3.2
by SAI_Peregrinus on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @01:04PM
(#26318252)
True, but there do exist (crappy) scrips with incorrect shebangs. EG specifying `#!/bin/sh` when they should use `#!/usr/bin/env bash`, since `/bin/sh` isn't necessarily bash. Could be dash. Could be fish. Could be oil. Etc.)
Re:Fish Shell 3.2
by geoelectric on Wednesday March 03, 2021 @12:43PM
(#26331829)
I think /bin/sh is required to be a POSIX shell, at least when invoked with that name, and fish wouldn’t qualify.
Re:Fish Shell 3.2
by ComputerGuru on Monday March 01, 2021 @10:20AM
(#26303531)
Fwiw fish_add_path doesn’t fundamentally change anything, users do get confused between global and universal variables and how they interact with exported variables like PATH, so this just makes it friendlier.
Re:Fish Shell 3.2
by SAI_Peregrinus on Monday March 01, 2021 @06:16PM
(#26309842)
It also helps prevent duplicate path entries. I'd written an "add_to_path_if_not_present" function, but "fish_add_path" should do the same thing. It's just convenience, but Fish is largely about convenience.
Re:Fish Shell 3.2
by berlinquin on Monday March 01, 2021 @12:40PM
(#26305524)
Thanks for sharing. I have a debian box that I try keep as standard as possible, and I think this setup would fit my environment well.
fish_add_path will solve one of the few annoying things about Fish.
I've been looking at trying Oil as a Bash replacement though, I think Oil for scripting + Fish for interaction might be a best-of-both-worlds setup.