Message-Id:	<4.3.1.0.20001025194822.00b14e90@pop5.banet.net>
X-Sender:	usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date:	Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:56:32 -0400
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
From:	"Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Bash 2.04 beta 6a
Cc:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1001025093713.7418B-100000@is>
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001024211121 DOT 00ac9ac0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

At 09:37 AM 10/25/00 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
 >On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote:
 >> I thought the "#foo" in a double-quoted string might be being
 >> "substituted" as a perl variable whose value was null
 >
 >Is that what really happens in the specific case where you saw the
 >problem?  I think it's really important to know what command was
 >passed to the shell, exactly, to be able to debug it efficiently.

I really do not know the answer to that question.  I can try to find 
out, but I'm going to have to take some time to learn how perl does 
these things in the first place before I can answer intelligently.

 >Also, there are (at least) two more unknowns in this equation:
 >
 >  - did Perl invoke Bash, COMMAND.COM, or our internal emulation of
 >    COMMAND.COM that is part of `system'?

Again, I don't know, though I may be able to find out with a couple of 
tests.  I'll get back to you on that if I'm able to figure it out.

 >  - do you have GNU Textutils installed where you saw this problem 
(if
 >    not, you get ECHO from COMMAND.COM)?

Yes, I do have GNU Textutils installed (txt20b GNU Textutils 2.0 
binaries for DJGPP V2), so I *should* be getting GNU ECHO and not 
COMMAND.COM's version.  Whether I really do or not is still subject to 
verification.

 >>  >You seem to be assuming that this is a Bash problem.  Why do you
 >>  >think that?  Does Bash 2.03 work with this example?
 >>
 >> As for bash 2.03, the current development versions of perl will not 

 >> build or test at all with that version, which is why I switched to
 >> v2.04.
 >
 >You cannot build with Bash 2.03, but you surely could try that
 >specific case with it, no?

Hm-m-m.  Yes, I could rename the v2.04 bash binaries and install just 
the v2.03 versions and try it out.  I'll let you know what happens when 
I do that.

Peter
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR
                      pjfarley AT banet DOT net)

- Raw text -