Message362337
> it seems strange/wrong to invoke an executable via "bash -c executable arg1 arg2", rather than just "executable arg1 arg2"!
I agree it's strange to invoke a single executable that way, but remember that -c allows a string of arbitrary bash code. (It just happens that bash code that consists of a single executable calls it -- useful behavior in a shell.)
Consider:
$ bash -c 'f() { printf "%s\n" "$@"; }; f "$@"' - foo bar baz
foo
bar
baz
> 1) If there exist use cases for setting `shell=True` and doing "bash -c my_executable arg2 arg3", then the documentation should say something like the following:
> """
> Using `shell=True` invokes the sequence of args via `bash -c`. In this case, the first argument MUST be an executable, and the subsequent arguments will be stored as bash parameters for that executable (`$0`, `$1`, etc).
> """
I'd be okay with clearer docs, but the given language is not quite right. For example, the actual shell call is /bin/sh (and depends on the platform). And, as described above, I think it would be too restrictive to say the first argument must be a single executable.
On the other hand, I disagree with option 2. I think raising an error would be very restrictive, and secretly quoting the argument could be surprising for (the few) people who understand the underlying shell mechanism. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2020-02-20 17:39:45 | jweese | set | recipients:
+ jweese, nik-sm |
2020-02-20 17:39:45 | jweese | set | messageid: <1582220385.13.0.0723106966125.issue39692@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2020-02-20 17:39:45 | jweese | link | issue39692 messages |
2020-02-20 17:39:44 | jweese | create | |
|