From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756470AbYLFMCZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:02:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754603AbYLFMCQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:02:16 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f18.google.com ([209.85.217.18]:46759 "EHLO mail-gx0-f18.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752331AbYLFMCP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2008 07:02:15 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=hTao3Bqscd8LKGzTPHj8JAIbULVANwX2Q5ThE1s4zcUcqxuzEk6OLn/cO/IwmHZi4F IB030UbdM92PM84gbt7eABXGaOw33sxhGi4HSwBzp5F1RvwX7bm5nZDsMaWjuvyDiiwk E2wjL+pC0mRX5xvJixRrHMw1QGMpthrq4roxc= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:02:14 +0100 From: Geralt To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?=" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Shebang - why are parameters not splitted on whitespace? In-Reply-To: <10860.1228542083@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <2375c9f90812030756r5b8840e1u3980ddca8df27a6b@mail.gmail.com> <2375c9f90812051704oa80cafeif17909e332178d6e@mail.gmail.com> <10860.1228542083@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 6:41 AM, wrote: > On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:04:52 GMT, Américo Wang said: >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Geralt wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I should have anticipated this objection :-). I'm aware that this is >> > not consistent among Unix operating systems (you can find more about >> > it here [1]), but I was specifically refering to linux in this case >> > and why it handles the shebang arguments as one big string and not as >> > single arguments for the application. >> >> I can't think out any strong reasons, maybe only becasue Linux developers >> prefer that approach. > > And of course, "whitespace" is a somewhat fungible concept. 'man bash' > and read about $IFS. > So you're saying that you can't do that because you don't know where to split the parameters, right? But would it be that bad to state a rule what "whitespace" is in the shebang line?