3 ms·

> But it turns out this doesn't really work, because not all commands support "--" So what? If you don't read the documentation for your the programs you run,

by pdkl95 8y ago

> But it turns out this doesn't really work, because not all commands support "--" So what? If you don't read the documentation for your the programs you run, mistaking filenames for an option is only only one of the many types of problem you might have. The problem of using programs incorrectly cannot be solved by changing filenames. You solve that type of problem by carefully understanding how to run each program you want to use (which means using -- for many (but not all) programs) and strictly validating & sanitizing your input.

faho 8y ago
>The problem of using programs incorrectly cannot be solved by changing filenames If changing filenames makes an incorrect solution work, then it solves it, in that case. ---- In this thread, you're missing the point somewhat - the problem isn't that it's _impossible_ to work with all sorts of filenames using shell, the problem is that it's a PITA to do so, even for experienced users but especially for newbies. I.e. sure I can use `"$@"` everywhere and quote every single variable I ever use, and prefix every path with `./` or use `--` for every command that supports it. What if I didn't have to? Wouldn't that be better?
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > In this thread, you're missing the point somewhat I assure you I'm not; I'm trying to explain why worrying about these problems at the filename level doesn't actually solve the problem, which should be handled at a different level of abstraction. > sure I can use `"$@"` everywhere and quote every single variable If you are writing Bourne shell without doing that, you are always going to have problems, because arguments are not always filenames. Yes, the syntax can be slightly annoying for historical/compatibility reasons. > What if I didn't have to? You don't. Use a different shell, or write your scripts in one of the many languages that are widely available like ruby, python, etc. If a scrip0t has #!/bin/sh at the top, you can probably rewrite it into any language you prefer.

by pdkl95 8y ago

faho 8y ago

>The problem of using programs incorrectly cannot be solved by changing filenames If changing filenames makes an incorrect solution work, then it solves it, in that case. ---- In this thread, you're missing the point somewhat - the problem isn't that it's _impossible_ to work with all sorts of filenames using shell, the problem is that it's a PITA to do so, even for experienced users but especially for newbies. I.e. sure I can use `"$@"` everywhere and quote every single variable I ever use, and prefix every path with `./` or use `--` for every command that supports it. What if I didn't have to? Wouldn't that be better?

pdkl95 8y ago
> In this thread, you're missing the point somewhat I assure you I'm not; I'm trying to explain why worrying about these problems at the filename level doesn't actually solve the problem, which should be handled at a different level of abstraction. > sure I can use `"$@"` everywhere and quote every single variable If you are writing Bourne shell without doing that, you are always going to have problems, because arguments are not always filenames. Yes, the syntax can be slightly annoying for historical/compatibility reasons. > What if I didn't have to? You don't. Use a different shell, or write your scripts in one of the many languages that are widely available like ruby, python, etc. If a scrip0t has #!/bin/sh at the top, you can probably rewrite it into any language you prefer.