Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:40:40 -0800
From: don fong <df...@dfong.com>
Message-ID:
<cahqakpu03jfz3smu0hcfie9rh8+kyqxv5gy7h6t-7zwf-x5...@mail.gmail.com>
| to me, your suggested wrapper script pattern seems unnatural. i don't
| always want users to have to carry around 2 files (the dottable library and
| the wrapper to dot it in).
Then use the " sh -c '. script' " version instead.
| speaking of breakage, i'd also note that your suggested pattern has a bug,
| it assumes that run-dotscr will only be run from the directory where the
| file lives. yes, the bug can be easily fixed. but fixing it will make
| your script a bit less "simple and natural".
Not really a bug, simply a simpliciation for the purposes of this e-mail
exchange ... obviously you're expected to be smart enough to use the
actual form that is needed to work in the environment in which the
script is to be tested - whether that means using a full path name, or
a PATH search, or whatever is appropriate for the situation (that is, the
"./dotscr" part of the example should be the same thing you'd expect the
user to type if they were to run it as an independent script.
The purpose of the example was to illustrate the echnique, not to provide
a ready made (complete) solution.
kre
