Date:	Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:16:02 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Daniel Barker <sokal AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Penalty for immature language (PERL/BASH)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SOL.4.21.0103042124120.24390-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010305091433.23825D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Daniel Barker wrote:

> But if poo (without extension) were run from
> PERL as `poo`, would the underlying call to system() still find poo.exe,
> poo.com and whatever other programs one would expect to work without an
> extension?

Yes, .exe, .com, .bat, and .btm files are still found.

- Raw text -