On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Thibault Kruse <kruset@in.tum.de> wrote:
> I modified rosrun the way I imagined it (attached to this mail), so you can
> try it out.
> However it turns out I forgot the parameters a scripter might want to use
> for his script.
> So one has to allow
>
> rosrun PACKAGE EXECUTABLE [ARGS]
> rosrun ABSOLUTE_FILENAME [ARGS]
>
> rosrun can still distinguish between those as absolute filenames need to
> have a "/" in them, whereas those are forbidden for package names. At least
> as long as the ROS community does not want to allow rosrun STACK/PACKAGE
> EXECUTABLE [ARGS] to disambiguate packages (but I believe ROS PACKAGE names
> need to be unique anyway, else plenty of tools break).
>
> The attached files work this way, once you install the provided rosrun in
> your $PATH (E.g. replace your rosrun at your own risk), and make the
> lispscript executable, the following should work (it does for me):
>
> $ ./lispscript  2 3
> Test, args:
> (/home/kruset/work/ros/sandbox/roslisp_support/sbcl/sbcl/bin/sbcl 2 3)
>
> Additional output may be observable depending on your sbcl (LISP) version,
> the last line is the one that counts.
>
> You can see how rosrun passes along the command line arguments given to the
> script. Of course, rosrun still does what it did for the PACKAGE EXECUTABLE
> syntax. The diff to current rosrun is trivial, as my changes are all
> contained in one if block. There are 2 minor TODOs left in the comments that
> a better scripter than me might fill in quicker than me.

This brings up an old thread, circa pre-1.0, regarding rosrun and a
'rosexec' command to rule them all:

https://code.ros.org/lurker/message/20100402.181431.05b5f3af.en.html

The thread started when I committed a change to rosrun to make 'rosrun
<pkg>' be interpreted as 'rosrun <pkg> <pkg>', i.e. 'rosrun rviz' ->
'rosrun rviz rviz'.  The overall thread is a useful discussion of the
ambiguous cases that result, as well as an interesting sketch of a
better launching command.

Why is the "rosrun ABSOLUTE_FILENAME [ARGS]" necessary for some
scripts?  From the perspective of command-line usage, it doesn't add
much value as it is equivalent to the user typing:

./ABSOLUTE_FILENAME [ARGS]

If there is a special need for a script, I would suggest a special
option, e.g. '-f', to flag the different usage and make it
unambiguous.

 - Ken

> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>
>