What is the difference between . . and source? [duplicate] When the script is done, any changes that it made to the environment are discarded script The above sources the script It is as if the commands had been typed in directly Any environment changes are kept source script This also sources the script The source command is not required by POSIX and therefore is less portable than the shorter
Source vs . why different behaviour? - Unix Linux Stack Exchange source is a shell keyword that is supposed to be used like this: source file where file contains valid shell commands These shell commands will be executed in the current shell as if typed from the command line
What is the difference between . and source in shells? 2 source is there for readability and self-documentation, exists because it is quick to type The commands are identical Perl has long and short versions of many of its control variables for the same reason
ZSH: Whats the difference between `. ` and `source`? I used to think that the built-ins and source are equivalent This question agrees with me when it comes to bash However I encountered the following using zsh: desktop ~ pst env usr bin e
Source shell script automatically in terminal How can I automatically source a particular shell script when I open a terminal window by right clicking somewhere and choosing "open in terminal"? For example, every time I open a terminal I need
bash - Revert . or source - Unix Linux Stack Exchange I accidentally sourced the wrong environment from a script Is there any way to 'unsource' it or in other words to revert it and restore the previous environment? The obvious answer is to start fr