Re: run batch w/o .bat?

[David T-G <davidtg-cygwin at justpickone dot org>]

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.

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...

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...


TIA for me, too, & HAND

:-D
-- 
David T-G                      * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) davidtg@justpickone.org * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) davidtgwork@justpickone.org
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!

Attachment: msg00094/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature