 |
 |
> I'd be inclined to quarrel with this interpretation, Pete. What the > kernel is doing isn't taking the script and running it as a binary -- > specifically its: [I can never resist a quarrel :-)] Actually what you said I completely agree with. So, yes, its not a binary in the sense that the script magically becomes a binary. But it is in the sense that you can treat the script as a binary and use it in all situations that would normally require a binary file. Which is not true of a script without the hash-pling mark. If someone whites such a scripot and someone with the wrong shell tries to execite it thne it fails. So the smartness has to be in the program to run a string of smmands, ture. But then all the programs we are discussing (shells, perl, pascal intrepretters etc...) are basically designed to run a sequence of commands, or else why would you want to write a script for tem ? So its a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. Seds a bit of an odd one out because you dont normally think of it as intrepreting programs. Interestingly I just tried using it recursively and that works too, you can write a script which is an intrpretter and then use that to be the binary for another script written in that scripting language. very nice :-) -pete.