Matt <m...@excalamus.com> 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