Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Since 'cat > foo.py' erases foo.py, you are obviously lying about that error message.


Hmm... I guess that makes me a liar too.

  powerbook.local 104> cat > foo.py
  # -*- coding: <utf-8> -*-
  def ô():
	return "ô"
  powerbook.local 105> python foo.py
    File "foo.py", line 2
  SyntaxError: Non-ASCII character '\xc3' in file foo.py on line 2, but no encoding declared; see http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0263.html for details
  powerbook.local 106>

Now if you actually go look at the web page in the error message, you should notice that the encoding doesn't include the < >.

But even when the encoding is set properly python still complains:

  powerbook.local 106> cat > foo.py
  # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
  def ô():
      return "ô"
  powerbook.local 107> python foo.py
    File "foo.py", line	2
      def ô():
	  ^
  SyntaxError: invalid syntax
  powerbook.local 108>


Are you sure you don't mean 'cat foo.py' or maybe 'cat - < foo.py'?


Yes, I'm sure.

cat > foo.py copies standard input into the file foo.py. The rest of the characters you're seeing in the message are what I typed in. The only character you don't see is the Ctrl-D I type to indicate EOF. This is a quick and easy way of creating foo.py without using an editor.


Ah, now I see.


"... Since 'cat > foo.py' erases foo.py, you are obviously lying about that error message. ..."

True this syntax erases the file. But all I did was cut+paste the example from the original source & added the source code encoding on posting. I knew the example code missed the encoding and I checked the example text for extra unicode characters (another possible source of errors) as I saved to the file & checked with cat. So I tried the example on the CLI before I posted and overlooked the redirection. It's not worth lying, way too many sharp people to pick you up. Just a simple display mistake.

Btw, the inference I'm lying. Does that also apply to the original author as well?

"... Some time later ..."

Doing a bit of digging. It appears the 'cat > foo.py' works like this ...

"... Redirection of output causes the file whose name results from the expansion of word to be opened for writing on file descriptor n , or the standard output (file descriptor 1) if n is not specified. If the file does not exist it is created; if it does exist it is truncated to zero size. ..." [0]

So my theory is you have tried this with a full file & it has erased itself. Thanks for the pick-up though. It is a fine distinction and something I've not come across before. We are both right but at different times.

[0] http://www.wlug.org.nz/bash%281%29Part5




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: