Talk:Interpreter directive

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest to merge the content of Shebang (Unix) into this page. "Interpreter directive" seems to be the proper, technical word for it, all the other names (shebang, hashbang, hashpling, pound bang) seem to be of unclear etymology, and a bit slangish. I am fully aware that shebang is the more common name. Opinions? --Pgallert (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shebang is more common — the end. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the end - not quite, as the articles overlap. Would you agree to merge the other way round? --Pgallert (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as they really are the exact same thing (I don't read Sun docs). ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y It looks like a justified merge request, these two separate articles are redundant. Shebang can redirect here. Reisio, Pgallert did say that he is “fully aware that shebang is the more common name”. What gives? --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What gives is that despite his apparent awareness of this fact, he initiated this proposal at all. I was reminding him of something he'd already realized which makes the entire endeavour pointless. Your endorsement of moving the article here suggests a similar state denial. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as already indicated, if you insist to merge it the other way round, fine with me. Feel free to adjust the templates. Using a totally unconnected analogy, I would still prefer to list Harvestmen under Opiliones, even though Daddy longlegs is the more common name. This has nothing to do with denial. Shebang is slangish and its connection to UNIX alone is simply wrong as Jerome Charles Potts points out. I suggested a merge because the articles are redundant, that's not pointless at all. --Pgallert (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your analogy — harvestman is listed under daddy longlegs. I'm not sure what else to call refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia policy other than denial. "slangish" or not, "shebang" is the more well known name, and as far as anyone can glean from this article (and arguably anywhere else), "interpreter directive" could just be a name Sun uses. Jerome points out in the talk space of this article (interpreter directive) that it isn't solely connected to Unix (even though the article already had the qualifier "typically"), and the distinction at most merits a trivial content edit, which is irrelevant to the article name. I have already agreed a merger is not pointless, as long as it's the other way around. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i mentioned the IBM mainframe bit in this talk page because i view it as the major one, where the contents of the shebang page should be incorporated. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what, though? ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I found this on WP:THIRD) There is definitely a clear need for merge here - the two articles clearly cover the same topic. Google gives 2,450,000 results for "interpreter directive unix" and 650,000 results for "shebang unix" - most of the results for "shebang unix" were blogs and forums (not WP:RS), whereas a lot more of the results for "interpreter directive unix" appeared to be technical manuals and the like. I've never heard either term before (not a UNIX user), ~~but it appears to me that "Interpreter directive" is the more commonly used term, and "Shebang" is slang for said term, so a redirect is probably needed.~~ Mildly Mad^Contribs 14:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that proves is that you don't understand so much how to use a search engine. If you'd searched for "interpreter directive" unix (quotes included), or even just "interpreter directive", you would see barely anyone uses this term. Texts which merely contain both the word interpreter and the word directive not juxtaposed are irrelevant. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I see your point now (and may I also remind you of WP:Attack). I suppose I was a little hasty in analyzing the Google results. Given Reisio's Google results and WP:UCN ("Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing in question."), I recommend (again, as someone who is not familiar with either term) to merge the articles in to Shebang (Unix). I'm a little cautious of this since (as Pgallert pointed out) it sounds a bit slangy, but I can't seem to find a more technically correct alternative. (is "Interpreter directive" a type of command that includes shebang?) Mildly Mad^Contribs 01:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Dennis Richie, and he would probably have used "hash-bang", which at least doesn't incorrectly imply that the construct is restricted to shell scripts. Linking the various names to Sun's more descriptive phrase isn't too unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siodhe (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, it's a term virtually only Sun uses instead of shebang. The two terms are synonymous, but shebang is much more common. If no one else wants to, I will merge this article into shebang (Unix) at my leisure. ¦ Reisio (talk)

This looks like a case where a CS-style descriptive term (which isn't restricted to just "#!", or "/bin/sh"), the originator's idea of what to call it ("hash-bang"), and a clear-cut example of jargon which seems to be somewhat regionally specific to American english and almost entirely specific to the Unix shell, are all competitors for the same prize. Rather than splitting the entry into separate, cross-referenced ones for the CS general sense and the more specific Unix shell sense, it seems more reasonable to have all the various terms pointing to the most descriptive/neutral one in the center, although this point certainly is open to discussion. I think Potts' mention of the feature existing elsewhere supports using "interpreter directive" as the focus, and would encourage other such notes to be added for other OSes supporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siodhe (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#! is a kernel feature on most operating systems. It was an interpreter directive only on UNOS (operating system) in the Unos command interpreter from around 1984. Schily (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Unix[edit]

BTW, a similar mechanism has existed on VM/CMS for IBM mainframes, when EXEC 2 replaced the CMS EXEC interpreter, and when later REXX was added to the catalog. The latter two languages require a special 1st line for the file to be properly distinguished and the right interpreter to be invoked. See "8.12 The CMS EXEC Interface". z/VM V5R3.0 REXX/VM Reference (Bookmgr) (version 5, release 3, modification 0 ed.). IBM. 2007-04-20 [1990]. Retrieved 2010-02-13. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge executed[edit]

In case anyone is wondering where the content has gone, I merged this article into the Shebang (Unix) article. The title of this article (interpreter directive) is much more encompassing than just the #! sequence. An interpreter directive is any language construct that controls the interpreter of a computer language, as properly stated by the reference that was included already, but completely ignored. In fact, it may be argued that the hashbang is not even an interpreter directive at all, it may be used in any data file to automatically invoke the data processing program for the data set. This article should focus on the general topic of controlling a program interpreter from within the interpreted language. Kbrose (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

There seems to have been a lot of discussion about a merge, but not much actually happening. I have re-flagged both articles with Twinkle and proposed a merge. I reckon the other article's content is better, but we should probably keep this title. Felixphew (Ar! Ar! Ar!) 07:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the above the answer is clearly a no, to the merge. The point was made there are different versions. I will wait a short time before removing this request that is not an agreement. Merge tag removed. Telecine Guy 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)