What is the standard alternative syntax to 'source filename' that achieves the same result?

Study for the OSCP Linux Exam. Use our flashcards and multiple-choice questions to test your skills. Each query comes with detailed hints and explanations to enhance your preparedness. Get ready to conquer the exam!

Multiple Choice

What is the standard alternative syntax to 'source filename' that achieves the same result?

Explanation:
The idea is to load a script so that its definitions run in the current shell session, making any variables, functions, or changes available immediately. The standard alternative to using source is the single dot syntax followed by the filename. This dot form is equivalent to source: it reads and executes the file in the current shell, so everything defined there stays in your environment. It’s portable across POSIX-compliant shells, whereas source is a Bash builtin that isn’t guaranteed in strictly POSIX sh. Other terms like include or load aren’t standard shell commands for this purpose. So the dot syntax is the portable, concise way to achieve the same result.

The idea is to load a script so that its definitions run in the current shell session, making any variables, functions, or changes available immediately. The standard alternative to using source is the single dot syntax followed by the filename. This dot form is equivalent to source: it reads and executes the file in the current shell, so everything defined there stays in your environment. It’s portable across POSIX-compliant shells, whereas source is a Bash builtin that isn’t guaranteed in strictly POSIX sh. Other terms like include or load aren’t standard shell commands for this purpose. So the dot syntax is the portable, concise way to achieve the same result.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Passetra

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy