Date:	Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:59:13 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	j DOT aldrich6 AT genie DOT com
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Paths and .COM files
In-Reply-To:	<199604100422.AA175530175@relay1.geis.com>
Message-Id:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.960411105112.27524K-100000@is>
Mime-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 j DOT aldrich6 AT genie DOT com wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification.  Is there any way to determine which commands
> are builtin for any given shell program?

I don't think there is.  For instance GNU Make has explicit tables of 
built-in commands for the various shells, which means that probably there 
is no way.

> and .EXE) to test the order of COMMAND.COM's searching.  :)  In fact, if my
> version of 'whence' is to work correctly, it can't depend on _is_executable,
> because that doesn't report .BATs as executables, does it?

Yes, it does; it also knows about .BTM files from 4DOS/NDOS.  Any file
that is runnable by DOS is reported as executable by that function.  This
includes many files you won't suspect being executables, like Windows
DLLs, and some other Windows files which include a small DOS stub that
just prints an error message.  That function is the engine behind the
`execute bit' reported by `stat' and `fstat' in DJGPP. 

- Raw text -