Re: degraded error message in case of hash-bang interpreter error

[Martin D Kealey]

Fair point. I guess I should s/POSIX/common Unix-like tradition/ and maybe
mumble something about BSD.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024, 17:54 Robert Elz, <kre@munnari.oz.au> wrote:

>     Date:        Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:55:54 +0300
>     From:        =?UTF-8?B?T8SfdXo=?= <oguzismailuysal@gmail.com>
>     Message-ID:  <
> CAH7i3LrjfHfgCejhmRMwd7mU2Hu4r_OuMVSzW3eSRC+3XqGWmQ@mail.gmail.com>
>
>   | On Monday, November 4, 2024, Martin D Kealey <martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz>
>   | wrote:
>   |
>   | > POSIX says that the execve syscall reads the name of an interpreter
> (and
>   | > options) from a '#!' line,
>   | >
>   |
>   | Where?
>
> Good question.   While POSIX has (just barely) reached beyond the point of
> believing
> that #! does not exist (which it used to try and pretend for a long time)
> it still
> resolutely avoids spexifying anything at all about how it works, or what
> it does,
> when it does appear.   In fact it goes so far as to demand that a strictly
> conforming
> shell script must not have '#!' as its first two characters (even though
> the '#' there
> would normally just indicate a comment up to the next \n) as it is not
> specified
> how a script that starts with #! is processed.
>
> kre
>
>