Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is a caveat to "would work". If I have executable foo.exe and > directory foo then both tests returns false. Given this, I don't see > anyway out of `((test -x foo.exe && test -f foo.exe) || (test -x foo && > test -f foo))'. Hm, I have some hesitations... Should I ``Bwa ha ha'', or ``Boo hoo hoo''?
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Richard Dawe
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Earnie Boyd
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Earnie Boyd
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille