Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:18:52 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Michael Stewart <mike AT reggin DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: getting all filename in sub-directory
In-Reply-To: <7nrl9s$iop$1@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990801111834.20304E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Michael Stewart wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote in message ...
> >An excercise that is left to the interested reader: why did I say
> >"command.com" and not simply "command"?
> 
> `command' on its own could execute command.bat or command.com if they are in
> the current directory. `command.com' will execute the command processor.

This is correct, but I don't expect anybody in their right mind to
have command.bat.  On the same token, it's possible that someone has
command.com that isn't really a command processor, so command.com will
also fail.

No, the reason I used command.com was more practical (it actually
happened to some people).  Recall that `system' invokes the shell if
the name of that shell (as defined by SHELL or COMSPEC in the
environment) seems to be of a Unix-style shell, like Bash.  Well, it
just happens that Bash has a built-in command named `command', which
will cause some really weird errors if you pass it a DOS command or
batch file name...