Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:32:51 -0500
From: David T-G <davidtg-cygwin AT justpickone DOT org>
To: "CygWin Users' List" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: "Larry Hall \(RFK Partners, Inc\)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: run batch w/o .bat?
Message-ID: <20020603203251.GL1231@justpickone.org>
References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20020603144303 DOT 0348bb90 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <C69F6A9E1E1F5A488C58B168F0875F4005BD9FF1 AT riv-exch1 DOT echostar DOT com> <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 20020603152755 DOT 02eb8d70 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gmhhrsDozM2n+uz5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020603152755.02eb8d70@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.99i

--gmhhrsDozM2n+uz5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Larry, et al --

=2E..and then Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) said...
%=20
% At 03:09 PM 6/3/2002, David T-G wrote:
% >
% >...and then Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) said...
% >%=20
=2E..
% >% The email archives is the place to look and look hard for something li=
ke=20
% >
% >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.
%=20
% Well, like I said, I didn't do anything more than ask for messages with=
=20
% "batch" in them.  Earnie's response was the fourth one based on score.

Yeah; I went farther than that.


% I definitely wasn't looking with something particular in mind.  I just=20
% reviewed what was returned in the order it was returned.

Understood.


%=20
% >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...
%=20
%=20
% I can't clarify your memory for you either.  I can say that I don't know=
=20

You can't?!?  Darn; I keep looking for someone who can help me with
that ;-)


% of such a facility.  The closest I know of is an analogous one in DOS whi=
ch
% uses PATHEXT.  That said, I've never had a problem with typing the full n=
ame=20

Hmmm...  That sounds familiar; maybe I have the two reversed.  Time for
more searching...


% to the batch file (i.e. <name>.bat) at the bash (or ash for that matter)=
=20
% prompt and getting the batch file to run properly.  I haven't set anythin=
g in=20

Same here; it's just nice to not have to remember to tack on the .bat if
possible.


% particular to get this to happen.  It's just always worked for me, so lon=
g as=20
% Cygwin thought the batch file was executable (i.e. chmod +x <name>.bat). =
=20

That's something I also never had to do, but I understand that mount
means I might (or, conversely, could consider a file *not* executable,
which was impossible under B20, where I was last and where I still find
myself thinking at times).


% But, of course, creating #!.exe and adding it as the first line to the ba=
tch=20
% file is exactly what tells Cygwin that this file should be treated as an=
=20
% executable.  So #!.exe is just another option if you can't get what you=
=20
% want/need from chmod (like on 9x/Me systems).

Since I'm on 98, that may be exactly what I need.


%=20
=2E..
% >*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
=2E..
%=20
% 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 statem=
ent
% better.

I suppose I misread Jan's post farther down in the thread, where he says
that running "foo" still doesn't work.  Unfortunately, the thread peters
out there.


%=20
% Obviously, you're welcome to pursue any .bat file issue you have further =
but=20
% I see nothing wrong with the observations and solutions posted so far.  T=
hey
% address the stated concern of being able to run a batch file from Cygwin=
=20
% shells AFAICS.

Yeah, I can keep tacking .bat on the end at the prompt and in the meantime
keep scratching my head waiting to put the pieces back together again :-)


%=20
% 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


Thanks & HAND

:-D
--=20
David T-G                      * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) davidtg AT justpickone DOT org * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) davidtgwork AT justpickone DOT org
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!


--gmhhrsDozM2n+uz5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE8+9JzGb7uCXufRwARApvTAJoDGKV+gwUDFw4CRQP454Wbxp7MBgCgjxif
CnTSp6lzwYGml9/E84UWQj0=
=pxM9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gmhhrsDozM2n+uz5--