Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <3B20ADB7.3B3F5235@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:49:27 -0400 From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: Cygwin Developers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Fortin CC: Cygwin Developers Subject: Re: File Access Oddness ( References: <000d01c0ef69$51faa840$44493209 AT fishkill DOT ibm DOT com> <3B1FB91A DOT 23AF129 AT yahoo DOT com> <00aa01c0efad$9373bbb0$8ba9e020 AT fortin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John Fortin wrote: > > > John Fortin wrote: > > > > > > Is the following a bug?? I do not remember needing '*.exe' to access a > file > > > before, especially when 'ls' does not show the extension. > > > > > > > Nope, it's a long standing feature. > > > > I hate to even ask this, but why??? If a file has an extension, shouldn't > 'ls' show it or is this a special feature for > exe extensions? Yes. Mainly to facilitate executing the binary without having to supply the .exe portion of the file name. > mv and cp and rm all failed because of the missing > extension. > Yes. Because the file name is actually foo.exe and not foo. -- Earnie. Use the source, Luke. (tm) _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com