On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:58:12PM -0600, _brian_d_foy wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Fedde
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Drop the backtick stuff.
>
> so, have you changed your mind about your previous comment, or is this
> sarcasm? i'm trying to work as a group here, instead of making all sorts
> of changes without discussion. you had a comment about the change, and
> i asked a general policy question. does this answer mean that you agree
> that shell scripts should not be used for Perl answers?
I wasn't asked, but I still think that it sucks recommending people
spawn 2 extra processes (sh, then cat) to do something *without error
checking* that perl could do in about 4 ops.
I'd like the backticks to go. Or have a health warning.
perl -T -le 'print `cat $ARGV[0]`' Backticks_are_no_good
Insecure dependency in `` while running with -T switch at -e line 1.
perl -T -we 'print do {local ($/, *FH); open FH, $ARGV[0] and <FH>}'
Backticks_are_no_good
for CGIs running in taint mode
OK, so it's not as terse. And it didn't check that many errors. :-)
Nicholas Clark
--
Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
