From: "Peter S Tillier" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Subject: #! bash bug - oops - sorry. Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 08:44:01 -0000 Organization: Private Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <200302080732 DOT h187W4Wu013299 AT en26 DOT groggy DOT anc DOT acsalaska DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: eq1152.demon.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1044693843 20278 158.152.22.92 (8 Feb 2003 08:44:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse AT demon DOT net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 08:44:03 +0000 (UTC) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com wrote in message news:200302080732 DOT h187W4Wu013299 AT en26 DOT groggy DOT anc DOT acsalaska DOT net... > this is very wrong - i was up to long dealing with a problem > related to this - and i had no business thinking ... > or doing email. > > -- > > 1. note that all references you provided, and 20 others i've read, state: > script starting with a line of the form "#! interpreter [arg]". > What this means is that the first line of the script (i.e., the "starting" line of the script) is of the form: #! interpreter [arg] That is, only one interpreter and one, optional, arg. > emphasis on "starting" - it does not say that there must (or should), > not be any more to the line before the end of the line. it could've > been written to say: > > "script containing a line of the form ..." or > "script consisting of a line of the form ..." or > "script with a line of the form ...", etc. > > but it wasn't written that way. all man pages say "starting" ... No, they say "script starting with a line ..." NOT "a line starting with ...", which is a different thing altogether. > i don't think the word was used frivolously, i think it was used > intentionally, for a reason. HTH -- Peter S Tillier "Who needs perl when you can write dc and sokoban in sed?"