Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <80575AFA5F0DD31197CE00805F650D7602CF0E@wilber.adroit.com>
From: "Robinow, David" <drobinow AT dayton DOT adroit DOT com>
To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: backslashes and perl
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:18:46 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> From: Peter Buckley [mailto:peter DOT buckley AT cportcorp DOT com]
> Subject: RE: backslashes and perl
> The correct syntax on *all* versions of perl? 
> I don't think I am using "active" perl, 
> or you must mean all versions except 5.001, 
> since my script accepted backslashes as paths 
> and worked fine in an NT command shell. 
> 
> It seems that /path/to/myfile is not 
> the only correct path syntax on all versions of perl. 
> 
> NT command shell uses C:\path\executable.exe, 
> and so do perl 5.001 and cygwin B20, 
> without any problems, flags, 
> or variables that need to be set. 
> 
> I don't have the line "C:\path\executable.exe" in my perl script, 
> I just have a variable that accepts the parameter from the shell. 
> 
> The NT command shell passes "C:\path\executable.exe" to the script.
 I am completed baffled by this statement.
 I thought a command shell passed what the user types.
 [By the way your original example used make in the middle.]
 
> 
> So I am not interested in rewriting the perl script to be portable, 
> it's portable already. 
> 
> I want cygwin and perl to be portable, 
> i.e. to work with an NT command shell
> and its default syntax.
  I don't understand why "default syntax" matters here.
> 
> I can't believe that programs written to emulate unix on NT 
> can't accept NT command shell syntax.
  Which program are you referring to here?  bash, perl, make?
> Does this clarify my question?
 Not at all.  Why is it so difficult for you to give a real example?
You refuse to use a Windows perl, you insist on typing screwy DOS paths and
claim that cygwin is the reason for your misery.
 Can you come up with an example that doesn't use any external programs so
somebody can end this thread?
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple