Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:53:56 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <7458-Fri24May2002135355+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <ackpus$4e5$1@antares.lu.erisoft.se> (eplmst@lu.erisoft.se)
Subject: Re: GNU Pascal (gpc) 2.1 released
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020523191611 DOT 3394B-100000 AT is> <3CED528D DOT 7DCF9660 AT yahoo DOT com> <3CED6BA6 DOT 48D4D0FE AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <ackpus$4e5$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: 24 May 2002 07:26:20 GMT
> 
> :     bash-2.04$ ls -l foo
> :     c:/djgpp/bin/ls: foo: No such file or directory (ENOENT)
> :     bash-2.04$ rm -fv @foo
> 
> I have myself been bitten by this.
> 
> Is there any good reason why a non-existent file shouldn't produce a
> warning?

To avoid an annoying warning in case @foo is not a response file at
all, but a legit command-line argument?