Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020603152755.02eb8d70@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 15:49:37 -0400 To: David T-G , "CygWin Users' List" From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: run batch w/o .bat? In-Reply-To: <20020603190905.GK1231@justpickone.org> References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20020603144303 DOT 0348bb90 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20020603144303 DOT 0348bb90 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:09 PM 6/3/2002, David T-G wrote: >Larry, et al -- > >...and then Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) said... >% >% At 02:27 PM 6/3/2002, Barnhart, Kevin wrote: >% > >% >I'm a new user to Cygwin, and although I'm sure someone has asked this >% >question before, I'll ask it again (since I sure can't seem to find it in >% >the FAQ or the archives). >% >% The email archives is the place to look and look hard for something like > >I did, too, but I didn't find anything that looked familiar -- and yet I >could swear that I had just seen this go by before. Well, like I said, I didn't do anything more than ask for messages with "batch" in them. Earnie's response was the fourth one based on score. I definitely wasn't looking with something particular in mind. I just reviewed what was returned in the order it was returned. >My recollection is that there's a parameter in the cygwin world where you >can add .bat to the extensions list that the shell should automatically >append to an unqualified name so that it knows to run .bat files just >like .exe and .com files. I haven't found that setting, though. While >it certainly may not exist, I can hardly believe that I dreamed it or >that I so badly misremembered something else... I can't clarify your memory for you either. I can say that I don't know of such a facility. The closest I know of is an analogous one in DOS which uses PATHEXT. That said, I've never had a problem with typing the full name to the batch file (i.e. .bat) at the bash (or ash for that matter) prompt and getting the batch file to run properly. I haven't set anything in particular to get this to happen. It's just always worked for me, so long as Cygwin thought the batch file was executable (i.e. chmod +x .bat). But, of course, creating #!.exe and adding it as the first line to the batch file is exactly what tells Cygwin that this file should be treated as an executable. So #!.exe is just another option if you can't get what you want/need from chmod (like on 9x/Me systems). >Having done quite a search through the archives since the question was >first posted, and having found nothing but your #!.exe idea, which was >*definitely* news to me (and some of the followups intimated that it >might be problematic), I wonder myself if there is a simple way to tell >bash to handle .bat files directly rather than mucking about with a #! >executable... I'm not sure what posts you're referring to when you suggest that #!.exe is problematic. I went back and reviewed the thread there and saw no outstanding concerns about #!.exe. Perhaps you could qualify that statement better. Obviously, you're welcome to pursue any .bat file issue you have further but I see nothing wrong with the observations and solutions posted so far. They address the stated concern of being able to run a batch file from Cygwin shells AFAICS. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/