← 3 messages moved from Raiders of the Lost Downboat

@EliahKagan no doubt it could and should be reworded. That paragraph caused me endless trouble. I don't even feel up to reading it yet. But I've left the tab open

@EliahKagan yes I think they should be moved... I thought they had been already...

@EliahKagan Ooh, is that a dangling modifier? I think technically it is not. I think I am modifying something that just happens to have its own adverbial clause. But I am unsure. :)

@Zanna I can edit the post. But I might would have to ask you a couple questions about it, so if you don't feel like looking at it at all right now, then I should wait.

@EliahKagan haha I used to work for this agency that did coaching for SATs... they had a system for spotting the grammar errors on SAT I writing sections... I have a feeling you should be talking about yourself and not the question in the second clause. But I'm getting rusty XD

Yeah I do seem to have to inflect it differently to change the order.

Well, maybe not: "The question was already bumped, so I felt, having just edit my answer, like I should fix anything in the question that needed fixing, too." That's not the clearest wording, of course. :)

haha nicely done

@Zanna Don't worry, I will also move these grammar messages to the island, as well as this message about moving messages, but probably not some of the earlier messages about moving messages, since they are more tied into the other material here than such messages usually are, and they also discuss moving things in the other direction (and thus belong here for that reason, or at least one of them does).

Plus, as far as I know I won't be moving anything by anyone who hasn't had their messages moved before, so the explanation won't be needed on the island. Though these two messages, which I shall move, will still provide some explanation, anyway. :)

hahaha excellent

@pomsky I think that the most ironic aspect of this whole general issue is that, although you'd think there would be a written guide on the matter, the most vital information for us to consider in deciding if a YouTube video is appropriate is instead best conveyed in this video and that one.

Dammit! I fell for it! >:(

:) :) :)

@EliahKagan I think I can manage it now. Did I write anything really embarrassingly wrong?

Not that I have noticed.

Do you mean you want to edit it now or that I should go ahead and edit it and ask any questions I have?

If you're going to edit it yourself, then I definitely don't want to preempt that.

I meant you are welcome to ask any questions about it (now or whenever is convenient) and edit it. I would edit it eventually as I'm not going to close the tab until it's fixed, but I don't expect I would get around to doing that until tomorrow at the earliest

@Zanna Besides the wording near the beginning about shebangs, the only other part that I think might benefit from changing is the other part about shebangs:

> Bash will assume anything beginning with unquoted # is just for humans (unless it's a #! on the first line of a file, as mentioned earlier) and ignore it.

When bash is already reading a script to execute it itself, I don't think it ever considers the contents of the shebang line. I also don't think it does so under other conditions, either, on systems whose kernels themselves support #!. It's only when bash is going to fork and exec a new process, and fails to do so because the kernel can't run the file, that the shebang line is examined to determine what interpreter will be used.

Linux (the kernel) understands #! so I think bash does no attempt to decide what interpreter to use for a script based on the shebang. It uses one of the functions in the exec family to ask the kernel to run the script. If the kernel cannot run the script because it has no magic numbers (i.e., no #! and nothing else that would help) then it fails, and then as a fallback bash runs it in a new bash shell.

Regarding the earlier part...

> When you give a file execute permission and then indicate that you want to execute it by running /path/to/filename (which is often ./filename), and it is a text file, it does not have a "shebang" #! on its first line followed by the name of the program you want to interpret the program, the shell program [...]

...I think the only difficulty in rewording it is in deciding how much information to provide. Do you want to talk about what happens when there is a shebang line? Or do you just want to say what happens when there isn't one?

→ 5 messages moved to Raiders of the Lost Downboat