> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:00:49 +0100 > > Maybe it's something to do with the > shall-i-invoke-a-shell-command-because-of-redirection-or-other-tricky-stuff > vs. shall-i-just-invoke-the-command-executable-itself-directly decision stuff? > > static char *sh_cmds_dos[] = { "break", "call", "cd", "chcp", "chdir", "cls", > "copy", "ctty", "date", "del", "dir", "echo", > "erase", "exit", "for", "goto", "if", "md", > "mkdir", "path", "pause", "prompt", "rd", > "rmdir", "rem", "ren", "rename", "set", > "shift", "time", "type", "ver", "verify", > "vol", ":", 0 }; > > That won't match "echo.", no? Yet it is still definitely a shell builtin.
I thought this was the issue, that's why I asked why is it important to have "echo.": it just outputs an empty line. I got a response which confused me, thus my last message. Btw, you can have an empty line with cmd's echo if you say `echo""'. _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
