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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020604135045.02e8d970@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 13:56:26 -0400 To: "Barnhart, Kevin" , "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: RE: run batch w/o .bat? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:32 PM 6/4/2002, Barnhart, Kevin wrote: > [Barnhart, Kevin] What sort of worms? I think my last sentence sums it up. Also, if you take a look at the code responsible for figuring out what's an executable and what's not in Cygwin, you'll likely get a better feel for the scope of the issue here. > How big is the can? No matter what size can you give me, I can find more worms than will fit in it! ;-) > Performance issues = me having to edit new batch files all the time. OK but I really have no idea what this statement means in the context of this thread. > Kevin > >> >> >> >> >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. >> >> > >-- >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/ -- 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/