Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl Subject: Re: wishlist: current line number variable Message-ID: <15698@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Date: 25 Jul 90 01:30:12 GMT References: <8815@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <8854@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) Lines: 25 In article <8854@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >Actually, I wasn't aiming quite so high. I was just thinking about >obsoleting sharchives. ... >But if you did have Perl, it would be more or less >self-unpacking. And Perl is available on more architectures that sh. >I think sharchives are gonna get obsolete real quick. *Sigh* Perl may be able to run on more *kinds* of machines than /bin/sh, but it's actually installed on a lot fewer boxes than /bin/sh, I'll lay odds. In fact the domain of comparison equals boxes with Bourne *PLUS* boxes with working 'unshar' extractor programs other than /bin/sh; these have been written for Bourne-unfriendly environments. And of the subset that do have Perl, what fraction will have the NEWEST VERSION necessary to support the extractor? None now; some presently; more eventually; all nearly never. The ones with old Perls will try and fail to extract, and we'll get problem reports. Shar isn't broken, and Perl shouldn't try to fix it IMHO. -- US out of North America, NOW!! /: Tom Neff -- Richard O'Rourke :/ tneff%bfmny0@UUNET.UU.NET