Subject: Re: gcc produces foo.exe, not foo
From: [email-masked] (Larry Hall)

26 Sep 1998 01:02:37 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: [email-masked] (Larry Hall)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Ben Elliston <[email-masked]>, Mumit Khan <[email-masked]>
Cc: Arne Glenstrup <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

At 12:59 PM 9/25/98 +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
>> As for the rationale for adding the automatic .exe, I'm somewhat in
>> favor of, if not thrilled by, such "native compliance"; for mingw32, it
>> makes perfect sense (must have .exe to jive with native system and also
>> be executable by native shell); for cygwin32, bash can run programs
>> with or without .exe, but have trouble when running with native shell.
>
>Since MS seem to be trying to hide file extensions in their user
>interfaces these days, I wonder how long it will be before they drop
>the filename extensions on executables all-together and start using some
>attributes in the file system?
>

This day cannot come quick enough for me!  This bogus association junk is
a nightmare in my estimation.  Presumably, before any such move is made, 
they have to at least provide the ability to store such attributes in a
useful way on all their file system types.  Since they seem willing to make
modifications to their file systems, even when they are not backward 
compatible, this still seems like something they might do.  I'm all for it!;-)

Larry Hall                              [email-masked]
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                          (781) 239-1655 - FAX
Wellesley, MA  02482-7797               http://www.rfk.com
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".