Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:08:10 -0400
Message-Id: <200205241408.g4OE8An03817@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <aclblq$akl$2@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$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <7458-Fri24May2002135355+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <aclblq$akl$2 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


> : To avoid an annoying warning in case @foo is not a response file at
> : all, but a legit command-line argument?
> 
> Ok. But in the case of rm there isn't a legit command-line argument
> starting with @, is there?

'@' is a legitimate filename character in dos.  If you had a file
named '@foo', then 'rm @foo' would be a request to remove file @foo,
and thus '@foo' would be a legitimate command line argument to rm.  It
may not be a legitimate *option* for rm, but it is a legitimate
*argument*.

C:\>  echo hello > @foo
C:\>  dir @foo
C:\>  rm @foo