On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:25:39 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: >> Version 3 is troublesome. It gives a short name to encourage people >> to run "racket <file>" so they don't have to do long stuff... but then >> punishes them if they use that to build a script and ever have a file >> with a similar name to a command. > > That doesn't sound quite right. With option 3, `racket' would decide on > file versus command syntactically, without consulting the set of > available commands or files. So, changes in available files or commands > do not change the interpretation of a command line.
Okay, let's say I write "racket my-favorite-string". What syntactic decision does "racket" use to pin "my-favorite-string" down as a potential command versus a potential file name? It still seems to me that any potential command may still be something a user might want to use as a potential file name. > I believe that a script implementor would be punished only if the > script was called from its own directory without using a path prefix > and when "." is in PATH. This sounds like an issue when using racket in #! lines. That's not the kind of script I meant. I mean a #!/bin/bash script that calls something like "racket $*" in it to invoke one or more files. There is trouble if the files coincide with command names, or the syntactic shape of commands, or whatever racket uses to decide something is not a file name. --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
