Re: #! -- reconsideration?
- To: Ted Baker <email@example.com>
- Cc: Cragun@cise.ufl.edu, Don.Cragun@Eng.Sun.COM, Don@cise.ufl.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: #! -- reconsideration?
- From: Maurizio De Cecco <email@example.com>
- Date: 11 May 2000 14:56:47 +0200
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Ted Baker's message of "Thu, 11 May 2000 08:14:44 -0400 (EDT)"
- References: <200005111214.IAA20667@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
Ted Baker <email@example.com> writes:
> | > Or, pick something else, like your favorit cartoon expletive
> | > #*?&!#@*#!.
> | If (and only if) a new syntax/mechanism have to be defined, could
> | be a good idea to explicitly separate in the syntax itself
> | the standard body from the version from the command/interpreted executed ?
> That is what I had in mind, i.e., to separate the issue of how
> to get the standard POSIX shell from the more general issue of
> how to support various other interpreters (Perl, etc.). The latter
> interpreters are pretty well outside the scope of POSIX.
Agree; actually i typed "from the version" instead of "and the version";
and what i meant is that the standard syntax should be generic with respect
to standard body, so POSIX should not be a keyword, but an argument,
and constraint on the version should be included (this make me think
to the feature provided by package systems like rpm ... ).
Maurizio De Cecco