Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:05:03 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: lauras AT softhome DOT net
Message-Id: <4949-Fri29Jun2001200503+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: <20010629174320.B659@lauras.lt>
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
References: <3395-Wed20Jun2001200621+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B3890D8 DOT 12023 DOT 1A6E91 AT localhost> <20010628184544 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <20010629142627 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <968-Fri29Jun2001173854+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010629174320 DOT B659 AT lauras DOT lt>
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

> From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:43:20 +0200
> 
> > > This is a real-life example for Eli, why current libc dosexec.c is harmful
> > > for bash.
> > 
> > I think I know there are situations when extension search gets in the
> > way, even without additional examples ;-)
>  
> Never mind, then, I just recall your posting earlier there asking why
> it is harmful.

It's not the same thing: a single example is not an evidence that a
certain logic is in general ``harmful''.