Re: utils/perldoc.Com vs utils/perldoc

On Sep 21, 2013, at 11:02 AM, John E. Malmberg =
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 9/20/2013 8:05 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>=20
>=20
>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:01 PM, John E. Malmberg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>=20
>>> After all, if you are going to always use Perl to invoke it, why
>>> add  the hack to make it work as a command file?
>>=20
>> Because you may not use Perl to invoke it. You may invoke it with
>> DCL  which will then invoke Perl. You can invoke it by putting it in =
the
>> command tables, or by setting up a foreign command, or by placing it =
in
>> a directory listed in DCL$PATH. Any and all of which can make =
"perldoc"
>> run perl_root:[utils]perldoc.com as a command procedure (which then
>> re-runs itself using Perl). That's about as close to having a shebang
>> line as you're going to get on VMS.
>=20
> I would agree with all of that, except that this is what you get when =
you try running it as a command procedure:
>=20
> LION> @perl_root:[utils]perldoc
> You called the perldoc command with a name that I didn't recognize.

Running it explicitly with "@" syntax is not one of the options I =
mentioned.

>>> And even more curious, why add a hack to make look like it should
> work as a command file with out actually making it work?
>>=20
>> Seems to be working just fine and as designed.
>=20
> Just printing an error message and exiting is how it was designed?


It was designed to be run as a command, not but running it with "@".  =
When you don't use it the way it was designed to work, it in fact =
(unsurprisingly) doesn't work.  Most likely with enough effort it could =
be made to work that way as well, but it was never intended to, and I =
don't see the value of it.
________________________________________
Craig A. Berry
mailto:[email protected]

"... getting out of a sonnet is much more
 difficult than getting in."
                 Brad Leithauser