tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/6] script(1) cleanups, -e to pass through exit code

>> script.1: clarify that -c runs the argument via sh -c
> Even if #2 was done, this is too much detail.  Users care what
> happens, not the nechanism by which it is made to work.

In general, I have on occasion run into cases where it is important to
know that sh -c is (or isn't) used.  Consider

$ foo echo a b \> z

Does this put "a b" into z, or does it print "a b > z" on stdout?
That's a substantial difference in behaviour, and it's the difference
between pasting the arguments together with spaces and using sh -c, for
the first result, and just execing the strings provided directly, for
the second.

In the particular case of script(1), the command is a single argument.
In that case, it's the difference between

$ script -c 'echo a b'
a b


$ script -c 'echo a b'
echo a b: not found

Furthermore, and people using Bourne-family shells for interactive use
tend to forget this, there's the difference between using sh -c and
using $SHELL -c.  In my case, for example,

script -c 'echo x 1>&2'

would print x to stderr (if using sh -c) or put "x 1" into a file named
"2" (if using $SHELL -c).

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index