Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!rbj@icst-cmr.arpa
From: rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: symbolic links  and csh execution
Message-ID: <8305@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 18:25:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.8305
Posted: Wed Jul 15 18:25:08 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 00:36:46 EDT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 37


   From: Jonathan Clark 

   On a similar note, for the people who are expounding starting one's
   shell scripts with "#! /bin/csh", the logical continuation of this is
   to start one's C programs with "#! /bin/cc", and so on. 

Hey, why not? This is more inline with the philosophy of `object
oriented programming'. There already exist tools floating around the net
to pick out embedded execution lines in text. Think about it, what would
it mean to `execute' a text file containing C code? Program, compile thyself!

							   Writing a
   language processor which is a partial superset of an existing standard
   is one thing, and quite OK in my book; hacking the kernel to support this
   automagically is quite another. Perhaps csh should have been made to
   interpret a strict superset of the Bourne shell, so that normal scripts
   work under it, and then csh scripts should have been interpreted via
   "csh script"? Then we wouldn't have this problem.

Yes we would. People like to write shells to do their own thing. I don't
see this `hack' as a bad thing. It seems to be reasonably general, and
I would guess doesn't take much code. The alternative is for the `exec'
to fail, and the invoking program build a shell command and resubmit it.

In addition, this lets a `script' choose its interpreter.

   -- 
   Jonathan Clark
   [NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc

   An Englishman never enjoys himself except for some noble purpose.

	(Root Boy) Jim Cottrell	
	National Bureau of Standards
	Flamer's Hotline: (301) 975-5688
	Th' MIND is the Pizza Palace of th' SOUL