Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2022
On 11/1/22 8:11 PM, James E Keenan <notifications@github.com> wrote:
>> https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/20472
> Whether we want FindBin to handle FIFOs and named pipes is something
> that really ought to be discussed first on the Perl5-Porters mailing list.
Gladly! :-D
So, this dies:
bash% perl -MFindBin <(echo 'print "$FindBin::Bin\n"')
Cannot find current script '/dev/fd/63' at FindBin.pm line 167.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at FindBin.pm line 167.
... and rather than expecting downstream modules to wrap their imports
in an `eval`:
BEGIN { eval "use FindBin ()" }
eval "FindBin::again()";
... this trivial change fixes the problem, and doesn't seem to introduce
any apparent[*] regressions:
--- a/dist/FindBin/lib/FindBin.pm
+++ b/dist/FindBin/lib/FindBin.pm
@@ -114,2 +114,2 @@ sub init
- if($0 eq '-e' || $0 eq '-')
+ if($0 eq '-e' || $0 eq '-' || -p $0)
[*] https://github.com/Perl/perl5/actions/runs/3374105629/
I feel like the omission of `-p` was more of an oversight, rather than
being expressly forbidden; it skews heavily toward the "Make The Hard
Things Possible" end of the spectrum, and probably just nobody thought
to try it before.
IMHO, if `FindBin` can handle an *unnamed* pipe — STDIN — then it should
treat a **NAMED** pipe/FIFO the same way, i.e., return the current
directory.
> Having some of the regression tests depend on using bash as our shell
> will not fly. Perl builds on many operating systems, not all of which
> support bash and we use quite a few more shells than just bash
Oh, I'll absolutely be the very first to admit that shelling out to
`bash` was chock full of Code Smell; that's why I put a big `skip_all()`
at the top, for systems/environments where bash isn't available...
But for the vast percentage of systems where it **DOES** exist, it also
seemed like the "Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work",as well as
being the most common situation to bite people in the wild... My guess
is that anything "smarter" — e.g., calling `POSIX::mkfifo(mktemp, 0600)`
and then `dup(2)`-ing that to `t/test.pl => runperl()`'s `\*STDIN`, or
some such — would only introduce MORE portability headaches. «shrug»
Anyway, I'm more than happy to jettison the whole `exec bash` nonsense!
I just figured having at least *ONE* test for the Happy Path would be
better than not providing any new `t/` tests at all...
Cheers! :-D
--
:- Dabe
Thread Next