On 8/9/2016 9:11 PM, Warren Young wrote: > On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Andrey Repin wrote: >> >>> PATHEXT looks for *executable* files, not file association. I warned >>> previously in this thread about getting the two confused. >> >> Your statement is confusing. If not contradictory. >> PATHEXT tells the shell to consider these file extensions executable. >> If you create a file association for ".sh" and add ".SH" to pathext, CMD will >> happily execute it, and in the current console. > > I think he means that if PATHEXT support appears in Cygwin (whether in the > DLL or just in Bash) that you would have to chmod +x any files you want it to > apply to. The existence of the file’s extension in PATHEXT alone would not > be enough.
No, adding a .sh to PATHEXT will not execute the file. No, doing a chmod +x will not cause CMD to execute the file either even if the extension is in the PATHEXT list. You must associate the .sh to the executable to consume it and once you do that association PATHEXT is meaningless. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
