Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:16:02 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Daniel Barker <sokal AT holyrood DOT ed DOT ac DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Penalty for immature language (PERL/BASH)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0103042124120.24390-100000@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010305091433.23825D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Daniel Barker wrote:

> But if poo (without extension) were run from
> PERL as `poo`, would the underlying call to system() still find poo.exe,
> poo.com and whatever other programs one would expect to work without an
> extension?

Yes, .exe, .com, .bat, and .btm files are still found.