On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'. I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether the found executable is a directory while testing -x or -f, and test for -d later on, notifying the user and possibly aborting. This second test might have false positives on Cygwin if x/ and x.exe exist, but I really don't care. I'd rather warn the user that something bad is about to happen. As a data point to support this choice, directories aren't generally skipped when searching the PATH. So why should we? -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com} CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
- 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