From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200106281919.VAA22494@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
In-Reply-To:	<6480-Thu28Jun2001220214+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from Eli Zaretskii at "Jun 28, 2001 10:02:14 pm"
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2001 21:19:13 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:13:32 +0200 (MET DST)
> > 
> > Sorry to butt in ,but are we talking about "foo" or "bash foo"?
> 
> Is there a difference?

I think so. If bash would run "foo.com" if I told it to run the shell
script "foo" (with the command "bash foo"), I'd be upset. How else
could I be able to say run (the shell script) "foo" and not "foo.com"?

With only "foo", I'd expect it to conform to DOZE rules so it'd run
"foo.com".


Right,

						MartinS

- Raw text -