Re^2: How to make Wake Win32 work?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: How to make Wake Win32 work? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 24, 2006 at 19:24 UTC
in a native windows perl implementation (activeperl for instance), i think the shebang is ignored altogether, Not so. `C:\test>perl #! perl -c $x = 1; ^Z - syntax OK` [download] 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.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: How to make Wake Win32 work? by EvanK (Chaplain) on Oct 25, 2006 at 03:24 UTC
yes, but you're coding directly into the perl interpeter. i mean if you execute a prewritten `.pl` file thats associated with the perl compiler. __________ Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: How to make Wake Win32 work? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 25, 2006 at 06:46 UTC
Then also `C:\test>type junk.pl #! perl -c $x = 1; C:\test>assoc .pl .pl=Perl C:\test>ftype Perl Perl="c:\perl\bin\perl.exe" -sw "%1" %* C:\test>junk Name "main::x" used only once: possible typo at C:\test\junk.pl line 2 +. C:\test\junk.pl syntax OK` [download] 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.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: How to make Wake Win32 work? by ww (Archbishop) on Oct 24, 2006 at 18:22 UTC
...usually executed by perl through a Windows Explorer file association. I don't know the truth value of that statement, but "usually" is pretty broad-brush and unless I'm being even denser than usual, I don't see anything in OP's statement of the problem to support or rebut the notion that the script is being invoked via an association. I also have a notion (but not the time right now to check my recall) that "the shebang is ignored altogether" is also subject to some qualifications or exceptions. <- yep, I may be wrong, but will try to recheck this later. In the meantime, let us hope that wiser ones will confirm or rebut?	[reply]