At Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:27:18 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: > If you run > > racket <command> .... > > where <command> doesn't have a "/", "\", or "." in it, then it's a > command dispatch. Any other use of `racket' could be like the current > `racket' command line. > > [Yes, weird and ugly. It's the sort of ad hoc rule that we'd > normally flag as poor language design. But if it works out, then > we'll get over it.] > > This rule works for scripts that start > > #! racket > > because the script name will be passed to `racket' as a full path, > which must at least have a "/".
Not true. Eli points out that if "." is in my PATH variable, then running the script from its directory with just the script's name gives the name to `racket' without any path prefix. Also, being more explicit with #!/usr/bin/env racket run doesn't work on many OSes (notably Linux), because "racket run" would be parsed as a single argument. That seems like a big problem. Anyone see a solution that lets `racket' work for everything? Or does this mean that we really are forced to have at least two main executables? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
