> > If someone thinks they might
> > use files named http://, they should have to go through hoops to make
> > it work. (I do think we should provide those hoops. That's what the
> > `script' prefix was about.)
>
> Well, remember: you can't create a file with "/" in it. On Windows, you
> can't create files with ":" in them.
Yes. But http://foo is equivalent to http:/foo.
No, humans don't name their files that way. They don't use double
slashes. And if they did, they'd most likely notice when they typed
the command, "Hey, that looks like a URL. Hmm." No debate there.
But when you have scripts constructing filenames and building paths,
all bets are off. The filenames may be built from unpredictable
sources, and who knows whether Joe Perl took the time to write the
script carefully. In that case, I think it's nice to offer a more
directly controlled interface, where the contents of the string never
affect its interpretation. Then you can write "${name}" in your
Bourne shell script, and not worry that things will fall apart if
$name has unsavory contents.
Some people don't think it's worth worrying about all this. Maybe
they're right. But it pisses me off no end how hard it is to write
Bourne shell scripts that handle filenames with spaces in it, or that
start with dashes, etc. It's just stupid. And I don't want to create
tools that contribute to the problem.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006