Anonymous user
Talk:Program name: Difference between revisions
→Common Lisp: new section
No edit summary |
(→Common Lisp: new section) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 68:
==Octave==
The Octave example is not wrong. Try it, it works, end of story. --[[User:Mcandre|Mcandre]]
: Not really. OS kernels don't necessarily pass all items on shebang line to interpreter; some give the script name as the only argument, some pass all items on the shebang line as a single string, and some pass only the first item as argument (and some don't even have /usr/bin/env). The example works ''on your system'', end of story. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 03:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Does <code>#!/usr/bin/env octave -qf</code> work on some system? I had assumed that someone had inserted a <code>#!/usr/bin/env octave -qf</code> without testing it. Perhaps my assumption was wrong. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
::: On Linux /usr/bin/env would try to invoke interpreter with "octave -qf" as exe file, so it's not going to work here. I don't know if some other system would behave differently. For reference [[http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/#blankrequired]]. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
:: If it's a question of OS-dependent behavior, then {{tmpl|works with}} is probably the appropriate way to identify this. If most common platforms ''do'' provide the information, then {{tmpl|works with}} is probably unnecessary, and listing exemptions (or classes of exemptions) is probably more useful. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Judging by the reference chart I linked to above, it may work on MaxOS X 10.4 and later, some BSDs, never Linux, some SunOS, some cygwin, and native windows is kinda out of question. I'm assuming the empty cell int that chart means "all args in one", which means 'octave -qf' does not work. It's very messy, and unless someone can test it comprehensively, it might just be easier to leave it out. For now it's probably safer to use inclusive 'works with' if you can verify it works on your OS. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 14:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
== Common Lisp ==
while i agree that it is odd to have references to other implementations when it is stated that the solution is specific to CLisp, i think the tendency should be to make this code run on other implementations as well. --[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 19:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||