develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2013

Re: Should runperl warn about "<"?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
September 4, 2013 14:00
Subject:
Re: Should runperl warn about "<"?
Message ID:
20130904140006.GH66035@plum.flirble.org
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 08:46:10AM -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Father Chrysostomos <sprout@cpan.org> wrote:
> > Zefram asked:
> >> Opinions on rebuilding runperl around this?
> 
> > But no, I think runperl should stay simple.  It's only used for test-
> > ing and we control all of its input.  So simply warning is sufficient.
> 
> I agree.  I regularly step through tests in the debugger to find out
> why they're failing, so the human readability of the command line
> generated by runperl is important.

It also has an option to send the program in on STDIN, so most of the
tests with annoying constructions can be implemented that way.
Sadly, as best I can work out, using `` and paying attention to quoting is
the only reliable way to get one liners into perl sub-processes, as all
the other options aren't implemented everywhere, or don't do what you might
hope for

(fork isn't implemented on VMS, pipe open with a list isn't implemented, and
list system concatenates its arguments unquoted to form the command line for
running the new process)

So yes, much that I'd like a reliable way to get one liners into the perl
interpreter, I like it more that the implementation is simple to follow, and
the tests have to bend a bit to live within the implementation.

(I'd like list pipe open too)

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About