Hi Thibault,

I just saw this recipe on ActiveState [1] which may get around the
previous csh vs. sh issues.  Works in roslaunch/rosh.  Is this
sufficient for your roslisp loading needs?

---------

#!/bin/sh
LOADER=''''; exec rosrun rosh rosh "$0" "$@" #'''

print packages


[1]: http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577851-teach-the-hashbang-header-new-tricks-using-a-dual-/

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Ken Conley <kwc@willowgarage.com> wrote:
> Hi Thibault,
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> I think at this point we need to basically decide between:
>
> 1) Modifying rosrun to have the separate command-line syntax (meant
> for scripts, not users).
> 2) Create a new ros/bin/ros-shebang (name TBD) to support this script
> use case instead.
>
> Given that this relates to a major command-line tool like rosrun, I'd
> rather not decide by fiat -- any opinions out there as to which is
> preferred? (+1/-1 votes welcome)
>
>  - Ken
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Thibault Kruse <kruset@in.tum.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is the "rosrun ABSOLUTE_FILENAME [ARGS]" necessary for some
>>> scripts?
>>
>> Because if I put
>> #! /usr/bin/env rosrun
>>
>> in a script file named foobar.xyz, make foobar.xyz executable, and call
>>
>> $ ./foobar.xyz arg1 arg2 arg3
>>
>> then bash will effectively call
>>
>> rosrun ./foobar.xyz arg1 arg2 arg3
>>
>> (So actually the syntax is just rosrun FILENAME [ARGS], not necessarily
>> the absolute path )
>>
>> So the syntax is merely for shebang, NOT for anyone ever putting
>> rosrun /path/to/filename
>> into any script or the command line.
>>
>>>     From the perspective of command-line usage, it doesn't add
>>> much value as it is equivalent to the user typing:
>>>
>>> ./ABSOLUTE_FILENAME [ARGS]
>> Absolutely, yes. That's my working assumption, the reason why I think
>> rosrun could be used instead of rosbang. That's what rosbang would also
>> do. So a rosbang command would be totally useless for command line usage.
>>
>> The syntax of rosbang would equally be
>> rosbang FILENAME [ARGS]
>> and its effect would be the same as
>> ./FILENAME [ARGS]
>> There is no reason why any user would ever type rosbang into the command
>> line. It would exclusively be used in
>> #! /usr/bin/env rosbang
>>
>>> 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.
>> No, not only is that not necessary, but it would make it impossible to
>> use rosrun that way, as
>> #! /usr/bin/env rosrun -f
>> is not possible.
>>
>> I was not aware of the rosexec thread. Went through it now. Introducing
>> rosexec PACKAGE/KEY as syntax would overlap with rosexec
>> directory/filename syntax, as far as i can see those could never be
>> merged into one command without the possibility of surprising the user
>> with unexpected actions in rare cases. So if that is still a
>> perspective, a separate command like rosbang might be wiser.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ros-users mailing list
>> ros-users@code.ros.org
>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>
>