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
Message-ID: <C69F6A9E1E1F5A488C58B168F0875F4005BD9FFD@riv-exch1.echostar.com>
From: "Barnhart, Kevin" <Kevin DOT Barnhart AT echostar DOT com>
To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: run batch w/o .bat?
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 12:06:59 -0600 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



	[Barnhart, Kevin]  As I understand it, the only alternative right
now is to place #! at the beginning of each of my batch files.  You
mentioned that having the shell program sort through for .bat in addition to
other extensions would be a performance issue.  I was just commenting that
this alternative would probably be worse than the fraction of a second that
the shell would have to take to look at some additional files.  I'm probably
more of a special case, though (which is why this would be a nice option). 

	>>  >>        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.
> 
> 
> 

--
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/