> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:22:32 +0100 > > On 23 April 2007 23:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > >> From: "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >> <[email protected]> > >> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:22:40 +0100 > >> > >>> I don't think "echo." is a shell builtin. It is a peculiar feature of > >>> the cmd.exe command parser. > >> > >> This is a semantic quibble. > > > > You are, of course, entitled to think so. But your thinking so > > doesn't yet make it so. > > No, it doesn't; the fact that no external executable is invoked and the > entire functionality is supplied by a subroutine within cmd.exe, on the other > hand, /does/ make it so
We are talking past each other. I reacted to the suggested change to add "echo." to the table of built-ins. It is in that context that you should read my ``I don't think "echo." is a shell builtin'': I meant to say that, since "echo." is not a built-in, it is wrong to solve this in a kludgy way by adding "echo." to the table of built-ins. > the point remains that make attempts > to invoke the slow path for shell builtins, and what the command line > specifies should occur here is the invocation of a shell builtin, and make > fails to identify it as such a case and fails to take the slow path and fails > to cause the shell builtin, however you may name it, to be invoked. I agree with this analysis. In short, Make fails to follow the command-line parsing rules of cmd, and thus behaves differently from what one would see at the cmd prompt. > In any case, we are in agreement that it's not worth attempting to emulate > the general weirdness of cmd.exe parsing, so the argument is entirely > academic. Your turn! Being in agreement doesn't have to rob us of the delight of continuing the argument! _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
