Matt <[email protected]> writes:
> ---- On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 09:29:56 +0100 Bruno Barbier
>
> > IIUC, what Max is saying is that you should not concentrate on
> > *that specific command* because that command doesn't do what you think
> > it does.
>
> Cool, it sounds like we're agreed (albeit for different reasons).
Great :-)
> > To reproduce, I'm personally still using:
> >
> > cat /tmp/test.sh | bash
> >
> > which is, IIUC, what:
> >
> > (process-file "bash" "/tmp/test.sh")
>
> Yes, agreed. I think that's more like what's happening.
>
> What about the ("-c" "bash") passed into process-file?
Useless indirection when the command is "bash" is the same as
'shell-file-name', like in our case ?
Maybe ...
But, you're right. To be safe, from now on, I'll use:
cat /tmp/test.sh | bash -c bash
Thanks.
Bruno
