Re: path PATH

[Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@xxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023, at 8:56 PM, Ray Andrews wrote:
> On 2023-01-22 17:11, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> However, there are plenty of scripts in Functions/Misc that fit this
>
> I don't understand Lawrence's perspective on this.  Can one have too 
> many tools?

I would actually argue that the answer to your strawman question
is "yes", but as I implied in another message, I had been unaware
of (or had forgotten about) Functions/{Examples,Misc}.  Since those
directories already exist, I'd have no particular objection to
shipping your toy in one of them, if so desired.

> Lawrence spins it as some sort of fetish to want to see the type
> of a param and it's value at the same time.

What I actually said (as opposed to the lie you just told) is that
I think it is inappropriate for the shell to natively duplicate
functionality that already exists, merely to provide an alternate
visual representation that you personally like better.

-- 
vq