On 2012-10-29, Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:
> Adam> You are right.
> Adam> What is the reason for this behaviour ?
>
> You mean for load_pathname? I don't know. I was merely reporting
> what the documentation stated. It does seem useful for batch to also
> set load_pathname appropriately. Perhaps there's some reason this is
> not done, but I don't know what it is.
I don't think there's any rationale for the current behavior. I agree
that binding load_pathname within batch is just as useful as for load,
so if someone wants to post a patch, I'd be happy to apply it.
I'm pretty sure I wrote the existing documentation for load_pathname by
grepping the code and then writing down the functions which modify it.
Same goes for a lot of stuff -- the documentation is descriptive, not
prescriptive.
best
Robert Dodier