Is there any difference between 'source <path>' and '. <path>' ?

[Arthur Chance]

On 08/09/2017 16:03, Manish Jain wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I used to be under the impression that 'source <path>' was fully 
> equivalent to '. <path>' : both executed <path> under the current shell. 
> (At least under Bourne shell derivatives)
> 
> But a few days back, I came across an instance where source fails while 
> invocation with period succeeds.
> 
> So I feel inclined to ask whether the 2 mean the same or not ?

'.' is Bourne shell, 'source' is C shell. bash might allow source as
well as ., but it's not strict Bourne shell if it does.


-- 
An amusing coincidence: log2(58) = 5.858 (to 0.0003% accuracy).