is Shell.pm deprecated?
Whenever I've had to execute system or shell commands, I use the backtick operator, the system command, or filehandle half-pipes (or whatever they are called :). And I've always seen these recommended whenever someone asks how to do that. But recently, I saw the use of the Shell.pm module: use Shell qw(who); my @who = who(); and I wondered what the (dis)advantages of using it are, and why no one uses it anymore? Chris -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Shell.pm deprecated?
From: Christopher Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whenever I've had to execute system or shell commands, I use the backtick operator, the system command, or filehandle half-pipes (or whatever they are called :). And I've always seen these recommended whenever someone asks how to do that. But recently, I saw the use of the Shell.pm module: use Shell qw(who); my @who = who(); and I wondered what the (dis)advantages of using it are, and why no one uses it anymore? I guess there are two reasons. 1) Noone knows about it. 2) With the current version it's not possible to specify a path to the program to run. But IMHO if enhanced a bit, this could be the easies way to run an external command. Jenda === [EMAIL PROTECTED] == http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz == There is a reason for living. There must be. I've seen it somewhere. It's just that in the mess on my table ... and in my brain. I can't find it. --- me -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Shell.pm deprecated?
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: I guess there are two reasons. 1) Noone knows about it. 2) With the current version it's not possible to specify a path to the program to run. But IMHO if enhanced a bit, this could be the easies way to run an external command. Jenda -- I noticed you are one of the coders on this module! -- Brett http://www.chapelperilous.net/ Charm is a way of getting the answer Yes -- without having asked any clear question. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is Shell.pm deprecated?
So, Jenda, what's the eta on the enhancement? :) Dean Theophilou P.S. Don't forget to update the docs too (preferably in Word or html format). : -Original Message- From: Brett W. McCoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:13 PM To: Jenda Krynicky Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is Shell.pm deprecated? On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: I guess there are two reasons. 1) Noone knows about it. 2) With the current version it's not possible to specify a path to the program to run. But IMHO if enhanced a bit, this could be the easies way to run an external command. Jenda -- I noticed you are one of the coders on this module! -- Brett http://www.chapelperilous.net/ Charm is a way of getting the answer Yes -- without having asked any clear question. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Shell.pm deprecated?
From: Brett W. McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: I guess there are two reasons. 1) Noone knows about it. 2) With the current version it's not possible to specify a path to the program to run. But IMHO if enhanced a bit, this could be the easies way to run an external command. Jenda -- I noticed you are one of the coders on this module! -- Brett I liked the idea and didn't like the fact that it doesn't work under windows :-) BTW, I have a version that does allow you to specify the path. And even whether you want to capture STDERR or wait for the process to complete : use Shell dir = 'dir !'; $res = dir 'c:\this_does_not_exist'; or use Shell edit = 'c:\soft\wscite\scite.exe'; $pid = edit( $pathtofile); It is not complete yet, not tested under anything but Win2k and I'm not sure it'll be accepted. Jenda === [EMAIL PROTECTED] == http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz == There is a reason for living. There must be. I've seen it somewhere. It's just that in the mess on my table ... and in my brain. I can't find it. --- me -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is Shell.pm deprecated?
From: Dean Theophilou [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, Jenda, what's the eta on the enhancement? :) eta? You mean beta ? http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz/Shell.pm Dean Theophilou P.S. Don't forget to update the docs too (preferably in Word or html format). : How about something else? Like WordPro, WordPerfect or even ... the great old T602 (don't try to find it, you could succeed) ;-) Jenda === [EMAIL PROTECTED] == http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz == There is a reason for living. There must be. I've seen it somewhere. It's just that in the mess on my table ... and in my brain. I can't find it. --- me -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Shell.pm deprecated?
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: I liked the idea and didn't like the fact that it doesn't work under windows :-) Under the default command shell? I assume it works under Cygwin with no problems. BTW, I have a version that does allow you to specify the path. And even whether you want to capture STDERR or wait for the process to complete : use Shell dir = 'dir !'; $res = dir 'c:\this_does_not_exist'; or use Shell edit = 'c:\soft\wscite\scite.exe'; $pid = edit( $pathtofile); It is not complete yet, not tested under anything but Win2k and I'm not sure it'll be accepted. I think that would be a useful thing. By all means finish it. I bet you can fins volunteers to help test under various Unix flavors (I can do Linux, Solaris CygWin). -- Brett http://www.chapelperilous.net/ Love is what you've been through with somebody. -- James Thurber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Shell.pm deprecated?
From: Brett W. McCoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: I liked the idea and didn't like the fact that it doesn't work under windows :-) Under the default command shell? I assume it works under Cygwin with no problems. I did not try. I don't use the shell for any scripts ... just as a place to enter commands (and start PSH) at so I did not install any unix shell. And I have to say ... I'm not a *nix person anyway. Now the question is ... if it used to wikr with Cygwin before ... did not I brake it then? Or does the cygwin perl report something else than MSWin32 in $^O ? BTW, I have a version that does allow you to specify the path. And even whether you want to capture STDERR or wait for the process to complete : use Shell dir = 'dir !'; $res = dir 'c:\this_does_not_exist'; or use Shell edit = 'c:\soft\wscite\scite.exe'; $pid = edit( $pathtofile); It is not complete yet, not tested under anything but Win2k and I'm not sure it'll be accepted. I think that would be a useful thing. By all means finish it. I bet you can fins volunteers to help test under various Unix flavors (I can do Linux, Solaris CygWin). That would be great :-) Thanks, Jenda === [EMAIL PROTECTED] == http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz == There is a reason for living. There must be. I've seen it somewhere. It's just that in the mess on my table ... and in my brain. I can't find it. --- me -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: is Shell.pm deprecated?
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jenda Krynicky wrote: I did not try. I don't use the shell for any scripts ... just as a place to enter commands (and start PSH) at so I did not install any unix shell. And I have to say ... I'm not a *nix person anyway. Now the question is ... if it used to wikr with Cygwin before ... did not I brake it then? Or does the cygwin perl report something else than MSWin32 in $^O ? The cygwin version of Perl returns cygwin from $^O. As far as I can tell, Cygwin's Perl behave exactly the same way as Unix Perl's do (Win32 modules don't seem to work well under CygWin). I haven't tried Shell.pm under Cygwin, but I can try stuff out and see how it behaves, versus the Win2k (ActiveState) version (I have both on the same machine). -- Brett http://www.chapelperilous.net/ You are confused; but this is your normal state. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is Shell.pm deprecated?
No, I meant ETA (Estimated Time of Arrival). By the way, I was only kidding. However, should you actually do it, then think of all the fame and fortune it will bring you. :) Dean Theophilou -Original Message- From: Jenda Krynicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: is Shell.pm deprecated? From: Dean Theophilou [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, Jenda, what's the eta on the enhancement? :) eta? You mean beta ? http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz/Shell.pm Dean Theophilou P.S. Don't forget to update the docs too (preferably in Word or html format). : How about something else? Like WordPro, WordPerfect or even ... the great old T602 (don't try to find it, you could succeed) ;-) Jenda === [EMAIL PROTECTED] == http://Jenda.Krynicky.cz == There is a reason for living. There must be. I've seen it somewhere. It's just that in the mess on my table ... and in my brain. I can't find it. --- me -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
