I guess it all comes down to whether your goal in calling system is to provide shell-like capacities, or simply to execute foreign code. I stand by my statement that there are very few instances where the multiple-argument form is a hinderance: it is only a hinderance where you need to interact with the shell directly.

Perhaps your direct experience with system is largely in that category; mine, however, is not -- most times, I see calls to system that are simply execution of foreign code, and require no shell capabilities in the first place.

As for the response to the shell escaping/quoting, it's technically correct if pedantic. The point is, one bypasses the issue when using the multi-arg form -- how isn't entirely important, sorry if the over-simplification confused or annoyed anyone.

Because there are clearly times when the single-argument forms are appropriate, I would not (as I have said before) suggest that this be a high-severity warning. However, it would be a good thing to tickle at a lower severity, from the point of view of "are you sure you know what you're doing, here?"

We've both made our points, and I certainly respect your point of view. I think we'll just have to agree to disagreesort-of agree ;-) on this one.

Updates:

• 2006-07-07 : agree to disagree? not exactly... see replies

Because there are clearly times when the single-argument forms are appropriate, I would not (as I have said before) suggest that this be a high-severity warning. However, it would be a good thing to tickle at a lower severity, from the point of view of "are you sure you know what you're doing, here?"

By that paragraph, we are exactly agreeing :)

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.