On Mon, 03 Nov 97 11:02:03 -0800 
 "Chris G. Demetriou" <cgd@pa.dec.com> wrote:

 > It should probably be a sysctl, based on exec type.  "oh, for a better
 > sysctl()."
 > 
 > Of all the things you might want to add a system call for, this
 > shouldn't be one of them.  8-)

The point is that I don't really want to add a new exec type.  You can
consider things that require an interpreter like this to be "scripts".
The trick is determining which script interpreter to give the script to.

If you can have multiple different non-#! script types handled, you
can't really use a sysctl() for it.  (Well, not in the traditional
sense... sysctl turns knobs, it doesn't add things to lists, etc.)

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-6                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 415 428 6939