Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:46:32 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se
Message-Id:	<3405-Fri29Jun2001084631+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200106281919.VAA22494@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 21:19:13 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject:	Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
References:	<200106281919 DOT VAA22494 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 21:19:13 +0200 (MET DST)
> 
> According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > > From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:13:32 +0200 (MET DST)
> > > 
> > > Sorry to butt in ,but are we talking about "foo" or "bash foo"?
> > 
> > Is there a difference?
> 
> I think so. If bash would run "foo.com" if I told it to run the shell
> script "foo" (with the command "bash foo"), I'd be upset.

With "bash foo" Bash is already called with the argument `foo', so it
tries to invoke that as is, I think.  Didn't try that, though.

- Raw text -