Surely R has higher standards than that. How about quality and completeness of implementation?
Every other major scripting language has implemented this for good reason and its a glaring omission. On 2/17/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/17/2007 7:31 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > > I think its best if core mods are done by the core group while others > > focus on work that can be done external to the core. > > Fair enough, but then you also have to accept that the core group is > going to set the priorities. As far as I know *nobody* in the core > group uses the CMD.EXE shell regularly, so changes to accommodate its > limitations are going to get low priority. > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > Thus, what I have done is to enhance the batchfiles distribution with > > 3 new batchfiles: Rscript.bat, #Rscript.bat and runR.bat which will be > > part of the > > next distribution of batchfiles but can be obtained now, if desired, from > > the > > batchfiles svn (with the caveat that they require R 2.5.0). The batchfiles > > home page is here: > > > > http://code.google.com/p/batchfiles > > > > The source tab on that page gets you to the svn and the links on the right > > include links to the NEWS and README files which describe the additions, > > a link to info on the Windows bug that I mentioned and two perl links that > > describe how this all works in perl which may be a helpful analogous > > situation. > > . > > On 2/17/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2/16/2007 9:35 AM, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: > >>> I mentioned this twice already and no one answered;however, I am > >>> mentioning > >>> this a third time since its a serious deficiency. > >> I agree this would be a reasonable addition, but I wouldn't class it as > >> a serious deficiency, and I don't plan to work on it myself. > >> > >> If you want to put together patches to the trunk code and docs to > >> implement this I'll review them and possibly commit them. If you don't > >> see this as a high enough priority to do that, then I'd suggest doing > >> what I do: don't use the CMD.EXE shell. There are a number of > >> Unix-like shells available in Windows (Cygwin, MSYS, etc.) that can > >> handle the #! syntax just fine. Or just use two files, as you describe > >> below. > >> > >> Duncan Murdoch > >> > >> > The Rscript facility > >>> that is upcoming in R is useful but on Windows one will often be relegated > >>> to having two files: a batch file and an R file unless the -x switch > >>> is implemented > >>> to allow them to be combined. This is not a problem on UNIX which > >>> supports > >>> #! but on Windows we need -x. Every other common scripting language > >>> including > >>> perl, python and ruby supports -x for this purpose. > >>> > >>> (The -x flag would start R processing at the first line that begins with > >>> #! so > >>> that prior lines could be Windows batch commands allowing the same file > >>> to be used as a batch file and an R file.) > >>> > >>> Note that there is a bug in Windows which means that if you simply > >>> associate > >>> .R to running R then the result cannot be redirected. There is a bug > >>> fix available > >>> for this but I think we need to be able to run out of the box for > >>> something this > >>> common. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1/29/07, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Haven't got any feedback on this one. > >>>> > >>>> Will we be getting a perl/python/ruby style -x switch for Rscript for R > >>>> 2.5.0? > >>>> > >>>> It certainly would give more flexibility to users of Rscript on non-UNIX > >>>> systems > >>>> where #! notation is not available. > >>>> > >>>> On 1/26/07, Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> Good idea. ruby seems to work the same way. python does too but with > >>>>> a slightly different definition: > >>>>> > >>>>> C:\> ruby -h | findstr strip > >>>>> -x[directory] strip off text before #!ruby line and perhaps cd to > >>>>> directory > >>>>> > >>>>> C:\> perl -h | findstr strip > >>>>> -x[directory] strip off text before #!perl line and perhaps cd to > >>>>> directory > >>>>> > >>>>> C:\> python -h | findstr skip > >>>>> -x : skip first line of source, allowing use of non-Unix forms of > >>>>> #!cmd > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 1/26/07, Vladimir Eremeev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> ActivePerl has '-x' switch which tells it to skip all lines in the > >>>>>> file till > >>>>>> "#!". > >>>>>> This allows writing perl scripts in ordinary .bat files. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ?shQuote contains a link with the following perl script example: > >>>>>> ===8<=== > >>>>>> @echo off > >>>>>> :: hello.bat > >>>>>> :: Windows executable Perl script > >>>>>> :: Note: > >>>>>> :: assumes perl.exe is in path > >>>>>> :: otherwise, use absolute path > >>>>>> perl -x -S "%0" %* > >>>>>> goto end > >>>>>> #!perl > >>>>>> > >>>>>> print "Hello, World!\n"; > >>>>>> __END__ > >>>>>> :end > >>>>>> :: ------ end of hello.bat ------ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Windows Notes: > >>>>>> " -x " (lower case x): Skip all text until shebang line. > >>>>>> " -S " (upper case S): Look for script using PATH variable. Special > >>>>>> meaning > >>>>>> in Windows: appends .bat or .cmd if lookup for name fails and name > >>>>>> does not > >>>>>> have either suffix. > >>>>>> " %* " only on WinNT/2K/XP; use %1 %2 . . . %9 on Win9x/DOS > >>>>>> ===8<=== > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the simplest way to implement shebang on windows would be > >>>>>> embedding > >>>>>> one more command line switch with similar functionality to perl's '-x'. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> View this message in context: > >>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Rscript-on-Windows-tf3120774.html#a8651815 > >>>>>> Sent from the R devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >>>>>> > >>> ______________________________________________ > >>> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > >> > > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
