Christopher Faylor wrote (quotes rearranged wildly): >If you are running your own version of bash, then all bets are off.
Just double-checked. BASH_VERSION='2.05b.0(1)-release'. I thought I was running 3.00 on Cygwin (I am on all other platforms), but apparently I was just making an ass of myself on a public mailing list (again?) stating that I was. Well, actually, it's first real embarassing now that I have to admit it. Well, not "have to", but anyway, there you have it. *hum*. >>Ok. I was wrong. It wasn't in the October archives and didn't >>immediately see anything obvious. >It is obviously too early for me to be sending email. *laugh* :-D. The cygwin list. It's mean but it's funny =). >>So, I looked in the archives for the release announcement for >>the test version of bash-2.05b-17 and quickly found this: >>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/threads.html#00781 Thank you very much! >I thought that bash-2.05b-17 was the current version but it is >actually a test version designed to handle the problem that you are >apparently describing. Fixed? Ooh! I'm currently dancing around like an ogre with a brain disease over the good news, but once I sober up I'll install it right away and let the list know if it helps. Might take a week or so, hope it won't be a month like the last time. Once again, thank you very much for your help so far. Also goes to the rest of you guys, of course. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
