Metaprogramming in fish question

[p7r0x7]

Metaprogramming in fish question

[faho]

function --inherit-variable file, see the docs.

Have you tried just adding this directory to $PATH instead? (I would then also recommend not using the fish function directory for this)

[p7r0x7]

I wanted to use POSIX shell scripts for all of my personal scripts (that I'd previously held in the functions folder) without .sh being part of the name (though I realize that extension is not strictly necessary).

I know this isn't a usual choice, but I'm in an unusual position of wanting to continue using fish as my daily interactive shell and switch to POSIX scripts for everything (because I've had a much better time of it than with fish scripts).

[faho]

I think you were anticipating a response I didn't give.

Let me try to expand on my answer.

Your immediate problem here is that you need to include $file now, when the function is defined. $argv will be filled in when you call it, but when you call it the value of $file will no longer exist (and even if it does, $file was a local variable and so the function would not have access to it anyway).

That's what --inherit-variable does - function $funcname --inherit-variable file will add a snapshot of $file to the function when it is defined.

---

This would generally work, but this dance is also just kind of pointless.

The way of least resistance is to just move your scripts to a directory, call them whatever you want, make them executable, add a shebang and then add that directory to $PATH.

E.g. move them to ~/bin and run fish_add_path ~/bin (once interactively is usually enough). And then simply don't define these as functions at all.

Importantly, these approaches will both share a rather big limitation: These run in dash (or bash, or whatever), and so any changes they make to the environment won't take inside fish.

When you change a variable or cd in a script like this, that affects the process running it, which won't be fish.

But making them a function doesn't magically change that.

[p7r0x7]

Yeah, I was hoping for the second half that; you'd said enough to get across the first part. And yes, I am aware environment things won't affect fish (and I was going to account for that if necessary, but really I usually don't want them to). I was hoping for your response based on why I said I was doing this in case you had insight for me, so thank you.

After thinking on it, I'm probably going to go with my original idea so I can keep my .sh and .fish scripts together (the shell prompt really should be fish).