On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote: > "Because I don't wanna play by the rules!" is not a rationale.
You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say executables should go to /usr/bin, *not* that everything in /usr/bin should be executable. > So you have to specify a path -- so what? The way things stand at > the moment, if I were to drop a gettext.sh in my ~/bin (which is > quite likely, except that I don't like to put a .sh on my helper > scripts) your shell scripts would suddenly go tits-up in a most > unpleasant fashion. Personally, *that* would be enough to make me > want to hardcode the path. The same could be said for an executable called "ls". Exactly the same. You do not hardcode /bin/ls in your shell scripts because we already have the PATH for that. Similarly, there is no reason to hardcode the location of gettext.sh because we already have the PATH. The name "gettext.sh" should be distinctive enough to avoid namespace pollution. OTOH, if you are really worried about namespace pollution, then please press the tab key twice while running bash. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
