Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amdcad!jimb
From: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: Re: Could we have a standard "shar" file format?
Message-ID: <6320@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 00:20:11 EST
Article-I.D.: amdcad.6320
Posted: Fri Nov 15 00:20:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 08:28:30 EST
References: <396@persci.UUCP> <4048@amdcad.UUCP> <579@edison.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 37
Keywords: shar format


Boy do you get your news late!! I wrote that a long time ago.
BUT:

	1) Why is it that the computer that does not recognize #! /bin/sh
	has to write a sed script to allow for the original poster
	writing an inadequate script?

	2) Computers that recognize '#! /bin/sh' to direct a script to sh
	also recognize ':' for the same purpose.  Computers that do not
	recognize '#! /bin/sh' also recognize ':'.

In the quest for a standard shar format, shouldn't a potential developer 
work for the lowest common denominator?

Therefore:

	a) Shar scripts should be 'sh' scripts, because some unlucky
	people don't have 'csh', but everyone has 'sh'.

	b) Shar scripts, since they follow item 'a)' above should use ':'
	for the reasons mentioned in '2)', above.

By the way, I get by quite well.  I have BSD4.2, csh, unshar, and sed.  But I 
believe in the practices of Columbia Univ. i.e. try to make your
product compatible for the most people possible, even if that requires 
more effort on the developer's part.
-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200

Bogus newsgroup: net.news: Move to end of .newsrc[yn^L]?

Don't be dictators, use thought.