Re: path PATH

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 2023-01-22 13:11, Bart Schaefer wrote:

> That's obviously not true, or it would not have been possible to write
> describe-params.

Roman's version didn't reference typeset at all (tho yours does).   Not 
that typeset might not be *part* of the solution, but by itself it is 
poor -- thus the value of DP. You and Roman have both pointed out that 
typeset -p is more a way of recreating variables than it is of 
displaying them with type and value.  And if it is already adequate, why 
would DP even need to be written? But it isn't and it did.

Pardon Sensei, but you and Roman have solved a problem while at the same 
time you're claiming there was/is no problem to solve. Nope, DP is this 
dolphin's idea of a well written utility -- focused, simple, 
understandable, informative, complete, helpful and (I expect) with no 
ands, buts, ifs, maybes, exceptions, entanglements or gotchas of any 
kind.  man page will be a couple of sentences.  Software for mortals.  
Superb.  Many thanks! IMHO DP should be standard equipment -- part of 
the release.

(BTW, haven't run your version yet, waiting for Roman to sign off on it, 
but it will only get better.)

Dunno, but if it was up to me it would be built in as: typeset -D

man page:

... To display the type and the value of any parameter: typeset -D PARAM 
(wildcards accepted).

That simple.  Love it.