You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 5, 2021. It is now read-only.
The original sub would look for commands for the sub in all directories of the PATH. This new implementation does not, it only considers scripts within libexec.
Therefore, I don't really see the need to force users to use the sub-prefix any more. I'd like to explore the consequences or removing this.
Right now I'm also using libexec to store scripts that do not start with sub-, which means they won't be available as commands, but will be available for commands. With the removal of the prefixes, these would then turn visible, so there should be a way to hide these. Perhaps putting them in a different directory, like splitting libexec into lib and exec.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The original sub would look for commands for the sub in all directories of the PATH. This new implementation does not, it only considers scripts within
libexec
.Therefore, I don't really see the need to force users to use the sub-prefix any more. I'd like to explore the consequences or removing this.
Right now I'm also using libexec to store scripts that do not start with sub-, which means they won't be available as commands, but will be available for commands. With the removal of the prefixes, these would then turn visible, so there should be a way to hide these. Perhaps putting them in a different directory, like splitting
libexec
intolib
andexec
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: