Re: #!shebang

[#!microsuxx]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024, 5:56 PM Reuti <reuti@staff.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

>
> > Am 20.11.2024 um 17:49 schrieb Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>:
> >
> >>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 16:33:46 +0100, #!microsuxx wrote:
> >>>> declare -a "a=( $( <argsf ) )"
> >>>
> >>> OK, that seems to work.  But it also doesn't seem to offer any
> >>> advantages over the eval command.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 16:53:42 +0100, #!microsuxx wrote:
> >> well ye functionally its same , just one lil less danger than eval
> >
> > That's my point -- it's NOT less dangerous than eval.  It's exactly
> > the same.
> >
> > It's arguably worse, not in terms of how it behaves, but because of
> > how it's perceived by the reader.  Look at your own statement here.
> > You think it's "less danger[ous]" than eval.  Why?  Because you've been
> > taught that eval is inherently dangerous?
> >
> > eval is inherently dangerous; that much is true.  But your alternative
> > behaves exactly the same way.  It's eval, spelled differently.  Yet
> > you think it's safer.  That's a mental pitfall.
>
> I got the idea to use `xargs` to split the arguments which include spaces
> to avoid `eval`:
>
> ./configuration.qemu | xargs qemu
>

one type of args are nospace simple args
other is spaces and stuff containing

we needed declare n eval to make up the harder second type
to make quotes interpreted
xargs does it too , split by quotes etc

greets ..

-- Reuti
>