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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020603163412.02e98df8@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 16:41:14 -0400 To: David T-G , "CygWin Users' List" From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: run batch w/o .bat? In-Reply-To: <20020603203251.GL1231@justpickone.org> References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 0 DOT 20020603152755 DOT 02eb8d70 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> <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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:32 PM 6/3/2002, David T-G wrote: >Same here; it's just nice to not have to remember to tack on the .bat if >possible. > Right. This has been discussed. It could be added but it opens up a can of worms and would likely result in performance issues as well. Searching for foo.exe and foo.bat (and foo.com and foo.sh and ...) whenever someone types "foo" is not ideal. >% 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). > >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). If by this you mean "mount -x" or "mount -X", then "yes". >% 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). > >Since I'm on 98, that may be exactly what I need. OK, then this could be good news for you! ;-) >% >... >% >*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 >... >% >% 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. > >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. I think Jan was referring to the desire to type "foo" and have Cygwin translate that to "foo.bat" automagically. That doesn't work now and may never, for the reasons I noted above. >% >% 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. > >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 :-) Sounds like fun. ;-) 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/