On 29 Jan 2002 11:19:45 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Olivier Chapuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dan,
> >
> > Why do not use [EMAIL PROTECTED]@ as with the other perl scripts?
> > At least my emacs recognize this. Your do not?
>
> Mine doesn't but I know how to fix it so it would.
> That would still leave other users without automatic perl mode.
If they edit the actual script with /hard/coded/path/to/perl and not the
.in file, there is a perl mode automatically.
> I don't see what the problem is, the script works fine as is.
Fully agree. There are no problems. Hovewer consider these 2 points:
* it is easier/more standard to add one line to configure so it
generates a script from .in than to generate it ourselves
* the script itself looks nicer without a bootsrtapping code
> Personally, I think the fvwm24_convert approach to bootstrapping
> perl is the better way to go, since it works for any perl I write,
> not just the stuff that runs through configure. Also the location
> of perl can change without having to reinstall fvwm.
Well, the following is even better if we want the first perl in $PATH:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
> I don't believe I was the one that put the perl mode line
> in there in the first place. It wasn't in version 1.1.
> You can change it if you want, as long as the path isn't
> hard-coded.
Having hard-coded path is good, not bad, this ensures everything will
work as tested on instalation stage. Having to reinstall after some
required part is changed is good too using the same reason.
And you may always run a script like:
/any/other/perl a_script
or even
perl a_script
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
