Re^11: Poll: Is your $^X an absolute path? (system $list)

I think we are at cross purposes here. As I understood xdg's post to which I responded, he was suggesting that the string form of system should not modify the contents of the string. To requote the bit I quoted.

I'm more comfortable saying that if you call system($line) then it's up to you to make sure that the line is valid for your OS

I am fully in support of your suggestion to fix the list form of system. Use your executive powers to see those of your posts I upvoted.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^11: Poll: Is your $^X an absolute path? (system $list)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: Poll: Is your $^X an absolute path? (system $list) by tye (Sage) on Aug 18, 2006 at 15:40 UTC
I understood that. I was just offering clarification (hence starting with "Note"). Thanks for further clarifying that you support my proposal. I'm not sure why xdg decided to bring up modifying the behavior of system($list) but it seems like a distraction to me. I also think it would be a bad idea. I also wanted to note that, though this particular proposal is an "attempt to 'compensate' for Win32's non-*nix nature and behaviour", that it doesn't present, IMO, the problem you noted for other such attempts. - tye	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^12: Poll: Is your $^X an absolute path? (system $list)
by tye (Sage) on Aug 18, 2006 at 15:40 UTC

I understood that. I was just offering clarification (hence starting with "Note"). Thanks for further clarifying that you support my proposal.

I'm not sure why xdg decided to bring up modifying the behavior of system($list) but it seems like a distraction to me. I also think it would be a bad idea.

I also wanted to note that, though this particular proposal is an "attempt to 'compensate' for Win32's non-*nix nature and behaviour", that it doesn't present, IMO, the problem you noted for other such attempts.

- tye

[reply]