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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020604150056.02e8f140@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:15:13 -0400
To: "Barnhart, Kevin" <Kevin DOT Barnhart AT echostar DOT com>,
   "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: RE: run batch w/o .bat?
In-Reply-To: <C69F6A9E1E1F5A488C58B168F0875F4005BD9FFD@riv-exch1.echosta
 r.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 02:06 PM 6/4/2002, Barnhart, Kevin wrote:


>        [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.
>> 

No, it shouldn't be the only option.  You can invoke cmd.exe (or command.com)
in you case with 9x) and pass it the name of your batch file.  With this,
you don't need to alter any batch file contents.  I expect there are other
options as well.

My comment with respect to adding BAT to the list of file extensions to 
recognize has a bit less to do with interactive user-perceived performance 
drops (although there may be some) than overall code complexity and the fact 
that the same argument could be made for other extensions.  In addition, you 
have to consider that this change also affects scripts, so every executable 
invoked in a script will be subject to any performance drain this additional
searching imposes.   However, if this is something you're interested in 
pursuing, it's always easier to evaluate the merits of proposed functionality 
based on a patch.  I'm certainly not trying to discourage you from that route
if you're so inclined.

 



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/