On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 11:52:49PM +0000, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 11:47:04PM +0100, ?????? wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 02, 2022 at 06:56:37PM +0000, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 11:07:49PM +0100, ?????? wrote: > > > > @@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ retaining the prior contents. > > > > .It Fl c Ar command > > > > Run > > > > .Ar command > > > > +.Pq via Nm sh Fl c Ar command > > > > instead of an interactive shell. > > > > > > or i suppose we could say > > > > > > Run > > > .Nm sh Fl c Ar command , > > > instead of an interactive shell. > > Agree, this is much better phrasing, cheers. > > > > > > -To run a command with arguments, enclose both in quotes. > > > why do you want to remove this line? the page is short, and it might > > > help someone. > > Because the value for -c is a *shell script*, not a command ??? > > i don;t follow. you can run: > > $ script -c ls > > i.e. a command, not a shell script/ No, "ls" is definitely a shell script. It forks, execps ["ls"], waits, then exits with WEXITSTATUS() or 128+WTERMSIG(). In many ways this is not that different than if you'd ran `script -c exec\ ls`, in which case the shell would just execp ["ls"].
> > I didn't think to change it out ??? it's much more confusing to have this > > include mention of arguments when, well, they aren't: this reads as-if > > script -c 'echo a || b' > > ran ["echo", "a", "||", "b"] ??? you can see issue here. > why would you think this? the text just explains that if you have > command+args you should quote it. Which means absolutely nothing, because script -c doesn't take a command or arguments ‒ it takes a shell program as the argument, which either starts at the next byte, if non-NUL, or is the entire next argument (XBD 12.1.2.a). Maybe I'm too hopeful in assuming the baseline of understanding how shell tokenisation works in the user? > > -To run a command with arguments, enclose both in quotes. > > +Scripts longer than just the name of a command need to be quoted, > > +and are subject to re-expansion. > that's a horrible sentence. i don;t see any improvement. Sure. Given this and Matthew's post, I've opted to leave both the Ar name and sentence as-is. Scissor-patch below. Also, unrelatedly, does your MUA just completely give up when decoding UTF-8 and convert each byte to a "?", or? -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH v3 4/4] script(1): explicitly specify sh -c The original wording is weird and doesn't explicitly say that it does sh -c, which is the fundamental point ‒ spell it out directly --- usr.bin/script/script.1 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/usr.bin/script/script.1 b/usr.bin/script/script.1 index 28783961a..857b387b6 100644 --- a/usr.bin/script/script.1 +++ b/usr.bin/script/script.1 @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ or retaining the prior contents. .It Fl c Ar command Run -.Ar command +.Nm sh Fl c Ar command instead of an interactive shell. To run a command with arguments, enclose both in quotes. .El -- 2.30.2
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
