[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:32:46 +0100 |
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/30/2009 01:38 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to Jim Meyering on 10/30/2009 6:29 AM:
>>>>>>> +eval '(exit $?0)'&& eval 'exec perl -wS "$0" ${1+"$@"}'
>>>>>>> +& eval 'exec /usr/bin/perl -wS "$0" $argv:q'
>>>> shouldn't that be perl, rather than /usr/bin/perl?
...
> I'd also change -wS to -S since the script can "use warnings" if it
> wants, but shouldn't be forced to. Some other scripts use -0777 or -T.
I definitely want to keep the -w.
If you're writing Perl without warnings enabled,
you'd better have a very good reason, and can certainly
manage the extra effort of applying s/wS/S/ to those two lines --
along with a comment justifying it, I'd expect.
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, (continued)
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Eric Blake, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Eric Blake, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Ludovic Courtès, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Jim Meyering, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Ludovic Courtès, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/10/30
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Explicit interpreter paths considered harmful, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/10/30