It's called 'raw' because it is supposed to get the arguments through *unmodified* to the called program. No file globbing, no escape stuff, nothing.
Plain 'system' invokes the shell, and therefore does file globbing. Anything about escaping in rawSystem is an internal implementation matter S | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Malcolm Wallace | Sent: 29 January 2004 13:48 | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: Problem with ghc on Windows ME | | "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > The implementation of | > rawSystem will attempt to compensate for the internal translation that | > Windows does on the command-line; on Unix no translation is necessary. | > So clients of rawSystem should be more portable, because they don't have | > to know about quoting that happens under the hood. | | This is probably a silly naming question, but aren't the names of | 'System.system' and 'rawSystem' the wrong way round? On the face | of things, it would seem sensible for System.system to have the more | portable behaviour, and rawSystem to be dependent on local conventions. | After all, System.system is defined in the official Libraries Report | making no mention of any portability problems, whereas the name 'raw' | suggests that no interpretation/quoting is going on, and hence it | may be highly dependent on the underlying system. | | Regards, | Malcolm | _______________________________________________ | Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
