Consider following code:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import sys
print "Hello! I've got %r as input." % sys.stdin.read()
This is chmod +xed script in /usr/local/bin/my_interpreter. And this:
#!/usr/local/bin/my_interpreter
This is intended to be passed "as is" to python script.
Is chmod +xed script that tries to make use of it. If I echo something | /usr/local/bin/my_interpreter, it works fine, but once I try to execute script above, it fails with
/Users/modchan/test_interpreter/foo.bar: line 3: This: command not found
Seems that foo.bar is silently redirected to bash instead of my script. What am I doing wrong? How to make this work?
Looks like Mac OS X requires interpreter to be binary, not another script. To make it work, change the second script's interpreter to
#!/usr/bin/env /usr/local/bin/my_interpreter
But you've got a second problem here: the contents of the second script will not go to stdin of its interpreter, but the script pathname will be passed as command line argument, i.e.
/usr/bin/env /usr/local/bin/my_interpreter /Users/modchan/test_interpreter/foo.bar
You shall read the file by name sys.argv[1] rather than from sys.stdin.
This depends on the program loader of the operating system you're running, which I take to be OS X from your tags. Many UNIX-like operating systems require the shebang interpreter to be a compiled executable binary, not another script with another shebang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix)
Linux has supported this since 2.6.27.9, but the author of this article suggests that there probably aren't any Berkeley-derived Unixen (which would probably include OS X) that do:
http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/#interpreter-script
One way to accomplish what you want would be something like this:
$!/bin/sh
exec /usr/local/bin/my_interpreter <<EOM
... content to be executed ...
EOM
Another way would be something like this:
$!/usr/bin/env /usr/local/bin/my_interpreter
... content to be executed ...
Related
I'm using Ruby on Linux.
I'd like to test for the existence of a command on the Linux system.
I'd like to not get back the output of the command that I'm testing for.
I'd also like to not get back any output that results from the shell being unable to find the command.
I want to avoid using shell redirection from within the command that I send to the shell. So something like system("foo > /dev/null") would be unsuitable.
I'm ok with using redirection if there is a way to do it from Ruby.
The simplest thing would be just to use system. Let's say you're looking for ls.
irb(main):005:0> system("which ls")
/bin/ls
=> true
If that's off the table, you could peek into the directories in ENV["PATH"] for the executable you're looking for. ENV["PATH"].split(":") would give you an array of directory names to check for the desired command. If you find a file with the right name, you may want to ensure it's an executable.
I want to avoid using shell redirection from within the command that I
send to the shell. So something like system("foo > /dev/null") would
be unsuitable. I'm ok with using redirection if there is a way to do it from Ruby.
system("exec which cmd", out: "/dev/null")
puts "Command is available." if ($?).success?
The exec is to explicitly avoid unnecessary forking in the shell.
As a sidenote type -P can be used instead of which, but it relies on Bash and may have surprising effects if script is ported to an environment with a different default shell.
This question already has answers here:
How to obtain the first letter in a Bash variable?
(7 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I am trying to my a custom terminal command. I just learned I am supposed to do it using the Unix script? I don't really know much of what that is and am still trying to figure it out. What I do know is that $1 is an arg is it possible to make it a variable and then get the first letter like you could in python?
EX:
str = 'happy'
str[0] = 'h'
You're asking a few different things here.
I am trying to my a custom terminal command.
That could mean a few different things, but the most obvious meaning is that you want to add an executable to your path so that when you type it at the terminal, it runs just like any other executable on your system. This requires just a few things:
the executable permission must be set.
the file must specify how it can be executed. For interpreted programs such as bash scripts or python scripts, you can do so by beginning the file with a "shebang line" that specifies the interpreter for the file.
the file must be in one of the locations specified by your $PATH.
I just learned I am supposed to do it using the Unix script?
there's no such thing as a "unix script", but what you seem to be referring to is a "shell script". Though these are commonly associated with unix, they're no more inherently a unix script than any other language. A shell, such as bash, sh, or any other, is just an interpreted language that is designed so that it is convenient to be used interactively by a human as well as being programmatically executed as part of a saved file.
I don't really know much of what that is and am still trying to figure it out.
Let's get into some specifics.
First I edit a file called 'hello-world' to contain:
#!/bin/bash
echo "Hello, world!"
Note that this filename has no "extension". Though heuristics based on file extension are sometimes used (espeically in windows) to determine a file type, unix typically sees a file "extension" as part of the arbitrary file name. The thing that makes this a potentially executable bash script is the specification of that interpreter on the shebang line.
We can run our script right now from bash, just as we could if we wrote a python script.
$ bash hello-world
hello, world!
To make the bash implicit, we mark the file as executable. This enables the linux operating system to consult the beginning "magic bytes" of the file to determine how to run it. Thes beginning bytes might signify an ELF file (a compiled executable, written in eg C, C++, or go). Or, it might be #! which just so happens means , "read the rest of this first line to determine the command to run, and pass the rest of this file into that command to be interpreted.
$ chmod +x hello-world
ls -l will show us the "permissions" on the file (more accurately called the "file mode", hence chmod rather than chperm) . The x stands for executable, so we have enabled the use of the leading bytes to determine method of execution. Remember, the first two bytes of this file, and the rest of that first line, then specify that this file should be "run through bash" so to speak.
$ ls -l hello-world
-rwxr-xr-x 1 danfarrell staff 33 Dec 27 20:02 hello-world
Now we can run the file from the current directory:
$ ./hello-world
hello, world!
At this point, the only difference between this command and any other on the system, is that you have to specify its location. That's because my current directory is not in the system path. In short, the path (accessible in a unix shell via the $PATH variable) specifies an ordered list of locations that should be searched for a specified command whose location is not otherwise specified.
For example, there's a very common program called whoami. I can run it directly from my terminal without specifying a location of the executable:
$ whoami
danfarrell
This is because there's a location in my $PATH in which the shell was able to find that command. Let's take a closer look. First, here's my path:
$ echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/go/bin
And there's also a convenient program called whereis which can help show which path elements supply a named executable:
$ whereis whoami
/usr/bin/whoami
Sure enough, whoami is in one of the elements of the $PATH. (Actually I shared a simplified $PATH. Yours might be somewhat longer).
Finally, then, we can get to the last thing. If I put hello-world in one of the $PATH elements, I will be able to invoke it without a path. There are two ways to do this: we can move the executable to a location specified in the path, or we can add a new location to the path. For simplicity's sake I'll choose the first of these.
$ sudo cp hello-world /usr/local/bin/
Password:
I needed to use sudo to write to /usr/local/bin because it's not accessible as my user directly - that's quite standard.
Finally, I've achieved the goal of being able to run my very important program from any location, without specifying the executable's location.
$ hello-world
hello, world!
$ which hello-world
/usr/local/bin/hello-world
It works! I've created what might be described as a "custom terminal command".
What I do know is that $1 is an arg is it possible to make it a variable and then get the first letter like you could in python?
Well, one option would be to simply write the custom terminal command in python. If python is available,
$ which python
/usr/bin/python
You can specify it in a shebang just like a shell can be:
#!/usr/bin/env python
print("hello, world!"[0])
$ hello-world
h
it works!
Okay, confession time. I actually used #!/usr/bin/env python, not /usr/bin/python. env helps find the correct python to use in the user's environment, rather than hard coding one particular python. If you've been using python during the very long running python 2 to python 3 migration, you can no doubt understand why I"m reticent to hard code a python executable in my program.
It's certainly possible to get the first letter of a string in a bash script. But it's also very possible to write a custom command in a program other than shell. Python is an excellent choice for string manipulation, if you know it. I often use python for shell one-liners that need to interact with json, a format that doesn't lend itself well to standard unix tool stream editing.
Anyway, at the expense of incurring SO community's ire by reanswering an "already answered" question, I'll include a version in shell (Credit goes to David C Rankin)
#!/bin/bash
echo "${1:0:1}"
$ hello-world hiworld
h
For example:
A script1.py gets an infix expression from the user and converts it to a postfix expression and returns it or prints it to stdout
script2.py gets a postfix expression from stdin and evaluates it and outputs the value
I wanted to do something like this:
python3 script1.py | python3 script2.py
This doesn't work though, could you point me in the right direction as to how I could do this?
EDIT -
here are some more details as to what "doesn't work".
When I execute python3 script1.py | python3 script2.py
the terminal asks me for input for the script2.py program, when it should be asking for input for the script1.py program and redirecting that as script2.py's input.
So it asks me to "Enter a postfix expression: ", when it should be asking "Enter an infix expression: " and redirect that to the postfix script.
If I undestand your issue correctly, your two scripts each write out a prompt for input. For instance, they could both be something like this:
in_string = input("Enter something")
print(some_function(in_string))
Where some_function is a function that has different output depending on the input string (which may be different in each script).
The issue is that the "Enter something" prompt doesn't get displayed to the user correctly when the output of one script is being piped to another script. That's because the prompt is written to standard output, so the first script's prompt is piped to the second script, while the second script's prompt is displayed. That's misleading, since it's the first script that will (directly) receive input from the user. The prompt text may also mess up the data being passed between the two scripts.
There's no perfect solution to this issue. One partial solution is to write the prompt to standard error, rather than standard output. This would let you see both prompts (though you'd only actually be able to respond to one of them). I don't think you can directly do that with input, but print can write to other file streams if you want: print("prompt", file=sys.stderr)
Another partial solution is to check if your input and output streams and skip printing the prompts if either one is not a "tty" (terminal). In Python, you can do sys.stdin.isatty(). Many command line programs have a different "interactive mode" if they're connected directly to the user, rather than to a pipe or a file.
If piping the output around is a main feature of your program, you may not want to use prompts ever! Many standard Unix command-line programs (like cat and grep) don't have any interactive behavior at all. They require the user to pass command line arguments or set environment variables to control how they run. That lets them work as expected even when they don't have access to standard input and standard output.
For example if you have nginx running and script1.py:
import os
os.system("ps aux")
and script2.py
import os
os.system("grep nginx")
Then running:
python script1.py | script2.py
will be same as
ps aux | grep nginx
For completion's sake, and to offer an alternative to using the os module:
The fileinput module takes care of piping for you, and from running a simple test I believe it'll make it an easy implementation.
To enable your files to support piped input, simply do this:
import fileinput
with fileinput.input() as f_input: # This gets the piped data for you
for line in f_input:
# do stuff with line of piped data
all you'd have to do then is:
$ some_textfile.txt | ./myscript.py
Note that fileinput also enables data input for your scripts like so:
$ ./myscript.py some_textfile.txt
$ ./myscript.py < some_textfile.txt
This works with python's print output just as easily:
>test.py # This prints the contents of some_textfile.txt
with open('some_textfile.txt', 'r') as f:
for line in f:
print(line)
$ ./test.py | ./myscript.py
Of course, don't forget the hashbang #!/usr/bin/env python at the top of your scripts for this way to work.
The recipe is featured in Beazley & Jones's Python Cookbook - I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Bash commands are available from an interactive tclsh session. E.g. in a tclsh session you can have
% ls
instead of
$ exec ls
However, you cant have a tcl script which calls bash commands directly (i.e. without exec).
How can I make tclsh to recognize bash commands while interpreting tcl script files, just like it does in an interactive session?
I guess there is some tcl package (or something like that), which is being loaded automatically while launching an interactive session to support direct calls of bash commans. How can I load it manually in tcl script files?
If you want to have specific utilities available in your scripts, write bridging procedures:
proc ls args {
exec {*}[auto_execok ls] {*}$args
}
That will even work (with obvious adaptation) for most shell builtins or on Windows. (To be fair, you usually don't want to use an external ls; the internal glob command usually suffices, sometimes with extra help from some file subcommands.) Some commands need a little more work (e.g., redirecting input so it comes from the terminal, with an extra <#stdin or </dev/tty; that's needed for stty on some platforms) but that works reasonably well.
However, if what you're asking for is to have arbitrary execution of external programs without any extra code to mark that they are external, that's considered to be against the ethos of Tcl. The issue is that it makes the code quite a lot harder to maintain; it's not obvious that you're doing an expensive call-out instead of using something (relatively) cheap that's internal. Putting in the exec in that case isn't that onerous…
What's going on here is that the unknown proc is getting invoked when you type a command like ls, because that's not an existing tcl command, and by default, that command will check that if the command was invoked from an interactive session and from the top-level (not indirectly in a proc body) and it's checking to see if the proc name exists somewhere on the path. You can get something like this by writing your own proc unknown.
For a good start on this, examine the output of
info body unknown
One thing you should know is that ls is not a Bash command. It's a standalone utility. The clue for how tclsh runs such utilities is right there in its name - sh means "shell". So it's the rough equivalent to Bash in that Bash is also a shell. Tcl != tclsh so you have to use exec.
I have a bunch of scripts (which can't be modified) written on Windows. Windows allows relative paths in its #! commands. We are trying to run these scripts on Unix but Bash only seems to respect absolute paths in its #! directives. I've looked around but haven't been able to locate an option in Bash or a program designed to replace and interpreter name. Is it possible to override that functionality -- perhaps even by using a different shell?
Typically you can just specify the binary to execute the script, which will cause the #! to be ignored. So, if you have a Python script that looks like:
#!..\bin\python2.6
# code would be here.
On Unix/Linux you can just say:
prompt$ python2.6 <scriptfile>
And it'll execute using the command line binary. I view the hashbang line as one which asks the operating system to use the binary specified on the line, but you can override it by not executing the script as a normal executable.
Worst case you could write some wrapper scripts that would explicitly tell the interpreter to execute the code in the script file for all the platforms that you'd be using.