X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 15:55:33 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Message-Id: <3069-Fri28Dec2001155532+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3C2C6340.4CC98EDD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:19:12 +0000)
Subject: Re: Odd 'rm' behaviour (WinXP)
References: <000001c18f2b$36184350$1c7d76d5 AT zastaixp> <3C2C6340 DOT 4CC98EDD AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 12:19:12 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> I wonder if del uses a different method of deleting the file than rm does.
> E.g.: del uses a Win32 delete function, whereas rm uses a DOS delete
> function.

If the shell's DEL uses a Win32 function, then the deleted file should
be in the Recycle Bin.  Windows deliberately doesn't put there files
removed by DOS function calls (which in Windows 9X included DEL issued
from COMMAND.COM).

Could it be that XP introduced some new feature for DOS deletions?