On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 23:54, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: > On 02/27/12 15:51, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > 2) The standard solution has been brought up, and I think it is decent > > one; we use an escape mode with a double dash (e.g. sage -- > > some_script.sage). > > This should probably be the fallback after either, > > a) don't try to execute things that are subcommands > b) don't treat as subcommands files which exist > > fails.
It's not actually a fallback for b), though. If a file does exist with the same name as a subcommand, b) makes it impossible to use that subcommand without changing directory or deleting/moving the file. One might say that in such cases we should do `sage foo` to execute the file foo and `sage foo --` to execute the subcommand, but this means you are no longer allowed to pass $@ along to the .sage file without snooping it, which is an ugly situation. IMO subcommands should always take precedence over filenames. `sage -- filename` should be the standard way to run .sage files. Or we could just ditch subcommands altogether. Or we could have a separate subcommand for running scripts, say `sage run <foo>`, which seems to fit in nicely with subcommands representing different actions, though it's less backwards-compatible than the other options. I like this last option the most, I think. It avoids hairy parsing behavior and corner cases, as far as I can see. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
