Re: [Oorexx-devel] Question ad SOURCELINE(1) and hash bang line

[Rick M. <obj...@gm...>]

Well, on the theory that any line returned by sourceline be one that can be
a valid piece of Rexx code, I disagree.  I personally am NOT going to
implement all of the housekeeping necessary to allow that to happen.

Rick

On 1/20/07, Rony G. Flatscher <Ron...@wu...> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> while adding the hash bang line to all testUnits and testing them, the
> following popped up:
>
>    [20070120 14:09:35.363000]: [failure] testCase: [TEST_SOURCELINE] (an
> ooRexx.Base.BIF.testUnit@523CF21F) ---> @assertFailure assertEquals:
> expected=[[#!/usr/bin/rexx], hashValue="AA212F75"x],
> actual=[[--/usr/bin/rexx], hashValue="B42D2F75"x].   subTest3
>
> My take on this is the following: in order to let the hash-bang line be
> processed without problems on any platform, it gets turned into a line
> comment, which is just fine.
>
> The question though is: should SOURCELINE(1) return the original line or
> the edited (the line-commented) one?
>
> In order to keep the "surpising factor" low, I would favor it to return
> the unprocessed (ie. original) version, i.e., "#!/usr/bin/rexx".
>
> Regards,
>
> ---rony
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oor...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>