Re: utils/perldoc.Com vs utils/perldoc

On 9/20/2013 8:05 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>

> On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:01 PM, John E. Malmberg
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> 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.

I would agree with all of that, except that this is what you get when 
you try running it as a command procedure:

LION> @perl_root:[utils]perldoc
You called the perldoc command with a name that I didn't recognize.
This might mean that someone is tricking you into running a
program you don't intend to use, but it also might mean that you
created your own link to perldoc. I think your program name is
[perldoc.Com;1].

I'll allow this if the filename only has [a-zA-Z0-9._-].

  at PERL_ROOT:[utils]perldoc.Com;1 line 11.
I think that your name for perldoc is potentially unsafe, so I'm
going to disallow it. I'd rather you be safe than sorry. If you
intended to use the name I'm disallowing, please tell the maintainers
about it. Write to:

     [email protected]


  at PERL_ROOT:[utils]perldoc.Com;1 line 11.

>> 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?
>
> Seems to be working just fine and as designed.

Just printing an error message and exiting is how it was designed?

Regards,
-John