"Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, sorry for the delay in replying; I just set up a new PC and
> there is still much migrating and configuring to do...
>
> > But I never read explicitly your environment also has this problem.
> > Has it, or has it not? Because we can
> it has.
>
> > Unix:
> > test -x && test -f
> >
> > DOS says no to test -x directory
> > test -x && :
> >
> > DOS says yes to test -x directory
> > test -x && test ! -d
>
> As previously stated, this will still break if the directory containing
> foo.exe also has a subdir named foo. But I guess this is not that likely
> and is better than the current test.
> Using 'test -x && test -f' would be even safer (probably), but would
> negate the use of -x on systems like DJGPP and Cygwin that emulate the
> executable bit for extension-based executables.
On DJGPP, can't you find some other tool that would help? For
instance, is perl necessarily installed? Can we use it?
