Messages in this thread |  | | From | Albert Cahalan <> | Subject | Re: Java and the FSSTND | Date | Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:07:33 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
From: Kevin M Bealer <kmb203@psu.edu> > On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Daniel S. Barclay wrote: > > > Scripts shouldn't have to have an absolute name there; it should be > > indirectable, so the script doesn't depend on where the interpreter > > is located (so the script will work on system with the interpreter in a > > different place). > > > > How about something like this: > > - Intrepret the name after "#!" as a command to be looked up as a normal > > command. > > - If it's an absolute name (starting with a slash), it works the > > same way as it does now. > > - If it's a simple name (no slashes), it gets looked up via the > > PATH environment variable (or whatever is appropriate > > considering security issues). > > - If it's a relative name (slashes, but no leading slash), it > > get looks up relative to the current directory (or > > whatever is needed for security). > > - If it ever became necessary, the kernel (or whatever) could look up > > simple names are map them to interpreter pathnames using > > whatever mapping mechanism we wanted. > > Maybe _I'm_ out of context, but what does this get you? > > Most of the scripts on my system usr /bin/sh ... I can link that to any > binary on my system. > > For what application is this useful?
Although /bin/sh is standard, many interpreters are not. What about wish, perl, and some_new_thing? It could be in /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/share/bin, /opt/bin, /usr/gnu/bin, /our_system/bin/linux, ~/bin, ~/bin/linux, or whatever.
|  |