[33126] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 4402 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Mar 27 14:14:15 2015
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 27 Mar 2015 Volume: 11 Number: 4402
Today's topics:
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <kaz@kylheku.com>
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <hjp-usenet3@hjp.at>
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <gamo@telecable.es>
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <news@todbe.com>
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <whynot@pozharski.name>
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 (Seymour J.)
Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7 <kaz@kylheku.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:38:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <20150326113523.693@kylheku.com>
On 2015-03-26, G.B. <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote:
> On 26.03.15 16:22, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
>> Another definition of executable would be "file which could be executed
>> via execve".
>
> Or this:
>
> "An executable file is a binary file that the processor can run.
> These files typically have the .exe, .dll, or .sys file name
> extension. Executable files are also known as modules, especially
> when executable files are described as units of a larger application.
> Before the Windows operating system runs an executable file, it loads
> it into memory. The copy of the executable file in memory is called
> the executable image or the image.
>
> "Note These terms are sometimes used imprecisely. For example,
> some documents might use "image" for the actual file on the disk."
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh439335(v=vs.85).aspx
>
> Therefore, no script is executable.
So the "EXEC" in "AUTOEXEC.BAT" was all a big lie.
A lot of that was going on back then, what with the continuation
of the Cold War into the Reagan era and all.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:58:16 +0100
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet3@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <slrnmh93o8.48t.hjp-usenet3@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2015-03-26 14:58, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> wrote:
> El 26/03/15 a las 15:42, Rainer Weikusat escribió:
>> gamo <gamo@telecable.es> writes:
>>> El 26/03/15 a las 14:59, Kaz Kylheku escribió:
>>>> The discussion is about suffixes on executables.
[...]
> leave me alone.
You are already quite alone.
My /usr/bin contains (besides 2000+ ELF executables)
about 550 shell scripts (only 6 of which have a .sh extension)
about 400 perl scripts (2 of them hava a .pl extension)
about 180 python scripts (20 of which have a .py extension, but
15 of them are just symlinks to the scripts
with the same name without extension)
So your assertion that using an extension on scripts on unixoid systems
is "proper" is obviously not shared by about 99% of the Debian
maintainers (even more if you count only the maintainers of perl
scripts).
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Fluch der elektronischen Textverarbeitung:
|_|_) | | Man feilt solange an seinen Text um, bis
| | | hjp@hjp.at | die Satzbestandteile des Satzes nicht mehr
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zusammenpaßt. -- Ralph Babel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 02:26:53 +0100
From: gamo <gamo@telecable.es>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <mf2bku$tno$1@speranza.aioe.org>
El 26/03/15 a las 23:58, Peter J. Holzer escribió:
> On 2015-03-26 14:58, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> wrote:
>> El 26/03/15 a las 15:42, Rainer Weikusat escribió:
>>> gamo <gamo@telecable.es> writes:
>>>> El 26/03/15 a las 14:59, Kaz Kylheku escribió:
>>>>> The discussion is about suffixes on executables.
> [...]
>> leave me alone.
>
> You are already quite alone.
>
> My /usr/bin contains (besides 2000+ ELF executables)
>
> about 550 shell scripts (only 6 of which have a .sh extension)
> about 400 perl scripts (2 of them hava a .pl extension)
> about 180 python scripts (20 of which have a .py extension, but
> 15 of them are just symlinks to the scripts
> with the same name without extension)
>
> So your assertion that using an extension on scripts on unixoid systems
> is "proper" is obviously not shared by about 99% of the Debian
> maintainers (even more if you count only the maintainers of perl
> scripts).
>
> hp
>
End of discussion, then.
But apart from that, share your work as possible. Nothing is better
that an example.
Cheers,
--
http://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:58:44 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <5514ab44$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <mf0rls$6d2$1@speranza.aioe.org>, on 03/26/2015
at 12:48 PM, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> said:
>An extension defines content and function,
Except when it doesn't. What is foo.doc? What is bar.ini?
BTW, doesn't windoze have an equivalent of shebang and extproc?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:01:23 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <5514abe3$3$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <87sicrbz1h.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>, on
03/26/2015
at 02:42 PM, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
said:
>gamo <gamo@telecable.es> writes:
>> El 26/03/15 a las 14:59, Kaz Kylheku escribió:
>>> The discussion is about suffixes on executables.
>>
>> Your discussion. Since when a script is a executable?
>Abstractly, considering that it's executed, since ever. Specifically,
>since about 1980,
Maybe in the PC world; earlier in the mainframe world.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:04:26 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <5514ac9a$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <mf144t$tj6$1@speranza.aioe.org>, on 03/26/2015
at 03:12 PM, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> said:
>Since when a script is a executable?
Since the late 1960's; thanks for asking. Maybe earlier?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:07:30 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <5514ad52$5$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <mf16pq$4gu$1@speranza.aioe.org>, on 03/26/2015
at 03:58 PM, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> said:
>To consider a script file executable there is needed the OS
>cooperation to change file mode bits.
File mode bits? We don't need no stinking file mode bits! Not every OS
is Unix-like.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:10:59 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <5514ae23$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <mf1a70$3g4$1@dont-email.me>, on 03/26/2015
at 04:57 PM, "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> said:
>Or this:
A proprietary definition doesn't count.
>https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh439335(v=vs.85).aspx
How about citing some vendor-neutral CS texts instead?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 19:03:54 -0700
From: "$Bill" <news@todbe.com>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <mf2dp6$k4j$1@dont-email.me>
On 3/26/2015 17:58, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <mf0rls$6d2$1@speranza.aioe.org>, on 03/26/2015
> at 12:48 PM, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> said:
>
>> An extension defines content and function,
>
> Except when it doesn't. What is foo.doc? What is bar.ini?
>
> BTW, doesn't windoze have an equivalent of shebang and extproc?
Most of that stuff works with the gigantic Windoze registry whereas
UNIX put it in the file/dir.
ASSOC Displays or modifies file extension associations.
help assoc
ASSOC [.ext[=[fileType]]]
.ext Specifies the file extension to associate the file type with
fileType Specifies the file type to associate with the file extension
Type ASSOC without parameters to display the current file associations.
If ASSOC is invoked with just a file extension, it displays the current
file association for that file extension. Specify nothing for the file
type and the command will delete the association for the file extension.
ATTRIB Displays or changes file attributes.
help attrib
Displays or changes file attributes.
ATTRIB [+R | -R] [+A | -A ] [+S | -S] [+H | -H] [+I | -I]
[drive:][path][filename] [/S [/D] [/L]]
+ Sets an attribute.
- Clears an attribute.
R Read-only file attribute.
A Archive file attribute.
S System file attribute.
H Hidden file attribute.
I Not content indexed file attribute.
X No scrub file attribute.
V Integrity attribute.
[drive:][path][filename]
Specifies a file or files for attrib to process.
/S Processes matching files in the current folder
and all subfolders.
/D Processes folders as well.
/L Work on the attributes of the Symbolic Link versus
the target of the Symbolic Link
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:19:16 +0200
From: Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <slrnmha13k.rgf.whynot@orphan.zombinet>
with <slrnmh93o8.48t.hjp-usenet3@hrunkner.hjp.at> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2015-03-26 14:58, gamo <gamo@telecable.es> wrote:
*SKIP*
> So your assertion that using an extension on scripts on unixoid
> systems is "proper" is obviously not shared by about 99% of the Debian
> maintainers (even more if you count only the maintainers of perl
> scripts).
That consensus is based on Debian Policy, 10.4(3). With background.
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:17:52 +0100
From: "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <mf3s9a$9vi$1@dont-email.me>
On 27.03.15 02:10, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <mf1a70$3g4$1@dont-email.me>, on 03/26/2015
> at 04:57 PM, "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> said:
>
>> Or this:
>
> A proprietary definition doesn't count.
(In a Perl-on-Windows⢠discussion, it does ;-)
>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh439335(v=vs.85).aspx
>
> How about citing some vendor-neutral CS texts instead?
Does such a thing exist and have a definition?
When I want my little SNOBOL-4 helpers to compute
something, what entity is executing the script?
(Phil Budne's C-based implementation or the processor?)
When mod_perl incorporates CGI scripts into the
Apache environment, who or what is executing what?
Is there a processor that understands BASIC instructions?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 08:51:22 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <5515524a$9$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <mf2dp6$k4j$1@dont-email.me>, on 03/26/2015
at 07:03 PM, "$Bill" <news@todbe.com> said:
>Most of that stuff works with the gigantic Windoze registry
That must make backup fun.
>whereas UNIX put it in the file/dir.
And OS/2 WPS puts it in extended attributes, which come with the file.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:30:33 -0400
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <55157799$11$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
In <mf3s9a$9vi$1@dont-email.me>, on 03/27/2015
at 04:17 PM, "G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> said:
>When I want my little SNOBOL-4 helpers to compute
>something, what entity is executing the script?
Given the existence of EXRPROC and shebang, you'd have to examine the
file to answer that. Even for machine language executables you have to
examine the file to determine the format, at least in Linux and *bsd.
>Is there a processor that understands BASIC instructions?
I hope not.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:52:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Subject: Re: running Perl scripts w/o extension on Windows 7
Message-Id: <20150327085051.890@kylheku.com>
On 2015-03-27, G.B. <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote:
> Is there a processor that understands BASIC instructions?
Kind of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Stamp
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 4402
***************************************
