William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Keshav Kini <keshav.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > You would do "sage foo.sage". It seems like you're ignoring that > files end in .py, .pyx, .sage, and no commands end in those > extensions. I don't see how there will ever be a conflict.
People often remove file extensions when making executable scripts they want to place in their PATH. Sage should be callable as an interpreter from a hashbang, too, should it not? -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
