On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Faré <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Dave Cooper <[email protected]> > wrote: > > CCL 1.9 > > ======= > > > > The second failure just looks like the extra space after the "ok 1" as we > > were seeing before. Perhaps this is also a CCL issue? Can anyone from > > Clozure comment on this? > > > As I mentioned before, it's a CCL bug. I filed > http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1110 > > Ok - so this issue is closed as far as this email thread is concerned.
> > Also, I think I confirmed that CCL's ccl:run-program on Windows really > does > > need the "cmd /c " prepended to be able to run a normal program. > > > ... > I believe it might be a matter of searching %PATH% or not. > It's really better to have an interface that doesn't call CMD when you > don't want it called. > The price to pay may then be to have to specify a full path for the > target command. > Note that uiop:run-program already accepts a :force-shell t argument > for people who want CMD /C to be forced. (PS: definitely not tested > under Windows.) > > Yes absolutely right. Sorry for taking so long to understand this. I confirmed it with various calls to the CCL executable itself (using the full pathname etc). So the reason we do the (cons "cmd" (strcat "/c " command)) on CCL is because ccl:run-program requires the executable as a separate argument, and it would be too convoluted/error-prone to try to parse the executable out of a string given by the user and call the ccl:run-program with it as a separate argument. So when the user gives a string argument we just use "cmd" as the executable. Sounds reasonable enough. When and if CCL provides a run-program which allows direct command-line access, as Fare suggests in http://trac.clozure.com/ccl/ticket/1110, then uiop:run-program will be able to call this version of run-program when given a string, and just pass the string directly. You worry too much about your job. Stop it. You're not paid enough to > worry. >
