[ale] Batch2com

[jmills at siberia.gtri.gatech.edu (John M. Mills)]

> I don't know of any such utility, except for gcc :)
That looks like the right answer.  Actually, two right answers:
  1) gcc works like that -- it runs its own associated parsers,
     code-generators, assemblers, linkers, ... from a compiled top-level
     process, and
  2) the usual way to make a process' mechanics [somewhat more]
     inaccessible, is to compile it.

I once read a warning against writing 'non-atomic'scripts which run setuid,
noting that input which caused a script-invoked utility to abort might
leave the user at root privileges.  (I may be misunderstanding this.)

I expect one alternative is to write your package as a simple series
of 'exec's for shell commands and for special-purpose compiled functions,
then compile it.  Would this approach serve your purposes?

cf the reason for making a binary is to distriburte a script that looks like a 
cf binary and no one could edit.  In perl you could write whole programs.  How 
cf could you sell them if anyone could edit them?

Similarly, if you wrote in Java and distributed compiled Java byte code,
would that meet your needs?

It isn't clear what types of scripts you are considering, particularly
whether they would mainly consist of sequences of useful shell commands,
or would mainly command an associated family of special-purpose functions
(a'la gcc).

John M. Mills, Senior Research Engineer   --   john.m.mills at gtri.gatech.edu
   Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0853
        Phone contacts: 770.528.3258 (voice), 770.528.7083 (FAX)
        EMACS: 'Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping' -- anon