File Access Oddness (

[Earnie Boyd]

John Fortin wrote:
> 
> > John Fortin wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the following a bug??  I do not remember needing '*.exe' to access a
> file
> > > before, especially when 'ls' does not show the extension.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, it's a long standing feature.
> >
> 
> I hate to even ask this, but why??? If a file has an extension, shouldn't
> 'ls' show it or is this a special feature for
> exe extensions?  

Yes.  Mainly to facilitate executing the binary without having to supply
the .exe portion of the file name.

> mv and cp and rm all failed because of the missing
> extension.
> 

Yes.  Because the file name is actually foo.exe and not foo.

-- 
Earnie.
Use the source, Luke. (tm)

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com