On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:45, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 3/14/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthew Burgess wrote: > > > How about: > > > > > > "The <command>ldd</command> shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. > > > Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash > > > in case other shells (see <link href="whatever">BLFS</link>) are > > > installed and linked to <filename class="symlink">/bin/sh</filename> > > > later:" > > > > I don't particularly like using the word 'shebang' in the book. It's > > slang and I think the book is a bit more formal than that. > > Unfortunately I don't really have a suggestion for a replacement that I > > really like. How about: > > > > "Change its invocation (shebang) line to ... > > Setting the shebang sets the interpreter for the script, whether it be > bash, python, etc. So, you could say "Change the script's default > interpreter to be Bash in case ..."
Doh! I actually had the word "interpreter" in there originally, then thought "shebang" might be understood more widely. I didn't even realize it was a slang term! So, yeah, I'm in favor of using "interpreter" or "program interpreter" instead of "shebang". Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
