Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from July 2002
(this message is not meant to sound like a flame, although I fear it may come across as one. sorry) On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 10:16:03AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote: > educated_foo@cvs.perl.org: > # test: > # - for t in t/compiler/*.t; do perl -I../../lib $$t; done > # + for t in t/*/*.t; do perl -I../../lib $$t; done > May I suggest that, at least in the long term, we avoid unportable shell > scripts and such? This sort of thing makes it quite difficult to port > to other OSes (like Windows) and wins nothing over a standard test > harness. IIRC it even makes it hard to port between Unix variants - some makes invoke $SHELL with flags to make it exit immediately if any command returns a non-zero exit status, while others don't. The former makes it hard to write meaningful shell pipelines. (IIRC I've had to write make rules of the form sh -c 'what I really wanted' before) Also, who says my $(PERL) is called perl? Or that it's the first perl in my $PATH. At one point I had /usr/local/bin/perl as 5.00404, which is intentionally going to trip up anything that doesn't remember that I invoked it as /usr/bin/perl Nicholas Clark -- Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/Thread Previous | Thread Next