Gaal Yahas writes: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:53:55PM -0000, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > And that breaks things, cos perl^M isn't something that BSD can execute. > > Of course it is something that BSD can execute. You just don't happen > to have an executable called perl^M in /usr/bin/. :)
Of course. As it is, I solved the problem by saving the file with Unix line-breaks, but creating a symlink called perl^M would certainly have been more fun. > Anyway, since most systems don't have it either, I almost always put > -w on the #! line ... I hadn't realized that this was a known technique that was used intentionally. Is it documented or in an FAQ anywhere? Certainly I'd been under the impression that only the purpose of -w was to enable warnings, and this secondary use is new to me. > ... even if my script is bound to run on 5.8, which supports the > warnings pragma, ... Though of course they do different things. The warnings pragma just enables warnings in your main script, whereas -w also turns them on in used modules that don't use warnings -- which can be either a good or a bad thing, depending on the modules in question. > to exploit the behavior you encountered here. Looks like I wasn't the > only one. Oh, I can assure you that this behaviour was not at all intentional -- the script's authors weren't even at the stage of initializing variables -- merely 'lucky', for some definition of "lucky". Smylers
