Mar 3, 2018, 2:23 PM
Post #13 of 13
Honestly, I do not understand why you both complaining that my question is not clear?!
Re: [FishMonger] In a perl-script trying to execute another perl-script that SETS SOME VARIABLES for caller script
[In reply to]
(Nothing negative, but i would like to get it.. I've already mentioned about my appreciation of your communication to me and it will not be changed! I am continue not with irritated arguing, but to get some reasonable points to myself...)
[BillKSmith] Blames me to asking for a process: '..you asked about running another process.'
No, I did not, while did not excluded it.
I mentioned that I checked running another process, but did not said I need exactly that.
Even in title it exactly said what I am looking for. Just did not mentioned in the title that the called script should received decided by first script parameters.
In the third sentence I repeat the title question with more explanation and with negative point of using any possible solutions for running piece of external code!
I could accept blame that I did not enough mentioned that the second script has to have some input from first, thinking that is visible by example...
But the request to have some return from the second one is clear and repeatedly mentioned.
And only 'do ...' is suitable for that, having not using a flat file to communicate scripts...
About [FishMonger] announce of the '.. a poor design choice.. )
it is hasty conclusion!
Both scripts are part of the whole process that has couple significant steps that frequently required results review, but, still assumed to have a chance to be executen by one command.
Actually, that is what I am providing by combining multiple modules into one process (the script 1 in my example.)
And, again, the second script should still be useful to process that step separately.
Anyway, whole process is the existing one, that always processed by set of steps and it is not possible (by time and complicity) redesign it completely, while I would, definitely, do that, if my opinion would be final!
(Speaking about the 'poor design', I could only envy to [FishMonger] if you are working in the system with all smart design everywhere! For my more than 25 year of developing experience I have never meat even 'not bad' designed system! (and that is Medicate/medicare; systems on Chrysler, on Ford, and now on GM!) I would say: than bigger and complicated a system, than poorly it designed!)
'the XY problem': again disagree!
I did not presented a solution Y, asking to fix it (as it explained in Wikipedia.)
Instead, I've presented my try and mentioned what is wrong on it! I assumed to eliminate such suggestion on responses, presenting why it is not suitable for me! I am not sure how any presented bad solution could be assumed as an ask to fix it!
And, on my filling, the problem X, I have asked, is enough obvious: need to run a script in middle of first one, having second one setting some vars (I am lost how else I could name variables to do not apply to term 'environment variables' .. And why in a question about the Perl script it should be referred to a shell variables, I am not guessing. There is nothing about shell in all messages, besides the word 'process', that comes from the Perl-commands, like 'system()' 'back-tick', 'exec()')
I intend to think, that the XY problem is built in reader's minds by intention to guess something that is not obviously asked, in assumption, that the requester has no ability to see a real problem and the reader will better understand what the requester need, instead of what he is asking!
So, once again, I am appreciate your support in my search and your help, but disagree in blames.
And it is not to say: 'that is it; do not want to hear anything more', but, instead, reflection that I am not convinced in presented blames on my bad asking.
I agree, something is not good in my way to present the problem if on 3 forums there is no understanding; but, mentioned points does not sound as a real reason.
Maybe it is not organized as expected, maybe it has extra points that are misleading, maybe used terminology is not standard and assumed, ... but, all that just my guesses that are not meaningful until I would hear confirmation from outside...
One point I accepting clearly: I did not obviously mentioned about the need to have the script-2 parameters be prepared in the script-1.
Yes, that point some how been in my mind as clearly obvious.
But, it is not enough to be not understood...
(This post was edited by alex5161 on Mar 3, 2018, 2:50 PM)