From: Daniel Barker Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Penalty for immature language (PERL/BASH) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:34:39 +0000 Organization: Edinburgh University Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <2110-Sun04Mar2001181824+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> NNTP-Posting-Host: holyrood.ed.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: scotsman.ed.ac.uk 983741673 15498 129.215.16.14 (4 Mar 2001 21:34:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT scotsman DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2001 21:34:33 GMT In-Reply-To: <2110-Sun04Mar2001181824+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote: [snip] > The next version of the DJGPP library changes the way `system' handles > such files, because the current behavior is a bit unsafe, as you > learned from this example. The modified `system' will not find > `poo.pl' unless you actually mention the .pl extension. But I imagine > even the new code will crash if you say `poo.pl` in a Perl program, > and `poo.pl' doesn't have the "#!/usr/local/perl" on its first line. Thank you very much for the explanation of the problem. The behaviour of the new system() sounds good. But if poo (without extension) were run from PERL as `poo`, would the underlying call to system() still find poo.exe, poo.com and whatever other programs one would expect to work without an extension? -- Daniel Barker.