Re: run batch w/o .bat?

["Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>]

At 03:09 PM 6/3/2002, David T-G wrote:
>Larry, et al --
>
>...and then Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) said...
>% 
>% At 02:27 PM 6/3/2002, Barnhart, Kevin wrote:
>% >
>% >I'm a new user to Cygwin, and although I'm sure someone has asked this
>% >question before, I'll ask it again (since I sure can't seem to find it in
>% >the FAQ or the archives).
>% 
>% The email archives is the place to look and look hard for something like 
>
>I did, too, but I didn't find anything that looked familiar -- and yet I
>could swear that I had just seen this go by before.


Well, like I said, I didn't do anything more than ask for messages with 
"batch" in them.  Earnie's response was the fourth one based on score.
I definitely wasn't looking with something particular in mind.  I just 
reviewed what was returned in the order it was returned.


>My recollection is that there's a parameter in the cygwin world where you
>can add .bat to the extensions list that the shell should automatically
>append to an unqualified name so that it knows to run .bat files just
>like .exe and .com files.  I haven't found that setting, though.  While
>it certainly may not exist, I can hardly believe that I dreamed it or
>that I so badly misremembered something else...


I can't clarify your memory for you either.  I can say that I don't know 
of such a facility.  The closest I know of is an analogous one in DOS which
uses PATHEXT.  That said, I've never had a problem with typing the full name 
to the batch file (i.e. <name>.bat) at the bash (or ash for that matter) 
prompt and getting the batch file to run properly.  I haven't set anything in 
particular to get this to happen.  It's just always worked for me, so long as 
Cygwin thought the batch file was executable (i.e. chmod +x <name>.bat).  
But, of course, creating #!.exe and adding it as the first line to the batch 
file is exactly what tells Cygwin that this file should be treated as an 
executable.  So #!.exe is just another option if you can't get what you 
want/need from chmod (like on 9x/Me systems).


>Having done quite a search through the archives since the question was
>first posted, and having found nothing but your #!.exe idea, which was
>*definitely* news to me (and some of the followups intimated that it
>might be problematic), I wonder myself if there is a simple way to tell
>bash to handle .bat files directly rather than mucking about with a #!
>executable...

I'm not sure what posts you're referring to when you suggest that #!.exe
is problematic.  I went back and reviewed the thread there and saw no
outstanding concerns about #!.exe.  Perhaps you could qualify that statement
better.

Obviously, you're welcome to pursue any .bat file issue you have further but 
I see nothing wrong with the observations and solutions posted so far.  They
address the stated concern of being able to run a batch file from Cygwin 
shells AFAICS.




Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/