On 22-Dec-2005, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18:41, Bas Wijnen wrote: > > If it is meant to be executed, it should be executable. > > If it is not, it should not have the shebang line. > > I disagree, there's nothing wrong with clearly documenting what > shell variant a script is written in, on the contrary IMHO A shebang line is more than documentation: it is a strong indication that the script will be executable from the command line. To have that expectation not be matched by the file's permission mode is a recipe for confusion. -- \ "When I get real bored, I like to drive downtown and get a | `\ great parking spot, then sit in my car and count how many | _o__) people ask me if I'm leaving." -- Steven Wright | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature