Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2012
* Jeremy Madea <perlbug-followup@perl.org> [2012-05-25 09:50]:
> Example:
> $ perl -i'.bak -e warn 1;' -e'warn 2'
> 1 at -e line 1.
> 2 at -e line 2.
>
> Showing that code can be embedded in the argument to the -i command
> line switch.
Red herring.
> Other switches can be embedded as well.
That is what you can in fact do. If the switch you embed is a -e then
of course that will let you embed code, but ultimately this is about
switches, not code.
> The bug was first reported by EvanCarroll on perlmonks.org
This is not actually a bug. Consider
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/;msgid=CALJW-qH4L3kNp-exwgNsTgz-QDrpymbmUhQEbkuS2=uhBQJfcg%40mail.gmail.com
And I believe that comment in the code you propose to remove:
> - if (*s) {
> - ++s;
> - if (*s == '-') /* Additional switches on #! line. */
> - s++;
> - }
… is a honking big clue that Eric’s conjecture is right.
In which case your proposed replacement:
> + if (*s == '-') /* Additional switches on #! line. */
> + s++;
… by preserving the comment while removing the functionality, makes it
a lie.
Now, I don’t know if we want to *keep* the feature. It is a workaround,
and in and of itself the behaviour is crazy.
But it is not there on accident so it shouldn’t be removed the same way
as something that were.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next