Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20001026202712.00b0f5d0@pop5.banet.net> X-Sender: usbanet DOT farley3 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 20:33:26 -0400 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com From: "Peter J. Farley III" Subject: Re: Bash 2.04 beta 6a Cc: "Mark E." In-Reply-To: <39F77243.19193.27836A@localhost> References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001025221409 DOT 00ad89b0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net> <39F4D6CB DOT 20960 DOT 364B6C AT localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 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 Precedence: bulk At 11:52 PM 10/25/00 -0400, Mark E. wrote: >I think so. The Bash manual says this about comments: > > In a non-interactive shell, or an interactive shell in which the >`interactive_comments' option to the `shopt' builtin is enabled (*note >Bash Builtins::.), a word beginning with `#' causes that word and all >remaining characters on that line to be ignored. An interactive shell >without the `interactive_comments' option enabled does not allow >comments. The `interactive_comments' option is on by default in >interactive shells. *Note Is This Shell Interactive?::, for a >description of what makes a shell interactive. What mode (interactive or non-interactive) is DJGPP bash in when invoked by system()? Does bash even know it has been invoked that way? Does it depend on whether the user started out in bash or in COMMAND.COM? I'm going to try the original perl test starting from a bash prompt, and see if that makes a difference. I'll keep you posted. Peter --------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org OR pjfarley AT banet DOT net)