> From: "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 12:13:29 +0200
>
> The whole problem with ':' is that it is the drive separator on DOS.
> Otherwise, transliterating ':' to ';' would indeed be a much cleaner
> method.
So, what you're saying is that DOS shells do not conform t
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:40:00PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:39:04 +0200
> >
> > I also forgot to say that your code could use happily AS_PATH_WALK.
>
> OK, here's a revised patch that takes all your suggestions into
> account.
> Come to think of it, why do we need PATH_SEPARATOR at all? At the
> early stage, when we are detecting what kind of shell we're using, we
> can transliterate ";" to ":" if we discover we are in a DOS
> environment. Then we don't need to use PATH_SEPARATOR at all, except
> in one little bit of
> From: "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:12:26 +0200
>
> Please use $PATH_SEPARATOR, not ':' (even for such hardcoded Unix
> paths), and use "[\\/]* | ?:[\\//]" to check for absolute paths.
> I think all DOS/Win32-based systems that can run configure use a
> POSIX-c
> @@ -442,6 +446,20 @@ if test "x$as_lineno_1" = "x$as_lineno_
>if test ! -f "$as_myself"; then
> AS_ERROR([cannot find myself; rerun with an absolute path])
>fi
> + case $CONFIG_SHELL in
> + '')
> +_AS_PATH_WALK([/bin:/usr/bin:$PATH],
> + [for as_base in sh bash ksh sh5;
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:39:04 +0200
>
> I also forgot to say that your code could use happily AS_PATH_WALK.
OK, here's a revised patch that takes all your suggestions into
account. It's much shorter, as I decided to omit AC_PROG_SHELL for
now. This allo
