On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:08:11AM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
> Running 'perl test.pl', where test.pl is:
>
> print "exe_name='$^X'\n";
>
> produces, on Windows and Linux at least, the absolute path of the
> perl executable, for example:
>
> exe_name='C:\Perl\bin\perl.exe'
> exe_name='/usr/bin
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 11:08:11AM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
> Thanks Autrijus. I'm sure you have higher priority tasks than this one
> but before I forget, I better note that what is currently returned by
> Pugs $?EXECUTABLE_NAME differs from p5 $^X.
Pugs is first a Golfing System, so there is
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:17:40PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : As of r1079, there is $?EXECUTABLE_NAME (that is, $^X in perl5) and
> : $?PROGRAM_NAME (that is, $0 in perl5). Note that those two things
> : are unspecced -- I just pulled them out from
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:17:40PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: As of r1079, there is $?EXECUTABLE_NAME (that is, $^X in perl5) and
: $?PROGRAM_NAME (that is, $0 in perl5). Note that those two things
: are unspecced -- I just pulled them out from perlvar.
I'd also note the $*EXECUTABLE_NAME migh
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 06:37:12PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
> When writing tests that run Pugs, the Pugs-equivalent of $^X would seem
> handy to me. I could run it with system("pugs tsanta.p6 ...") but that
> seems bad. Any other ideas?
As of r1079, there is $?EXECUTABLE_NAME (that is, $^X in p
Unless I hear any objections, I plan to add:
t/examples/golf.t
to automate running of tsanta.p6, so as to verify both my original and
rg0now's Santa golf solutions. I notice there is an existing (unfinished?)
t/examples/examples.t. I could add my new tests there, it's just that
I personally prefe
