Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'.
> >
> > I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether
> > the found executable is a directory while testing -x or -f, and test
> > for -d later on, notifying the user and possibly aborting. This
> > second test might have false positives on Cygwin if x/ and x.exe
> > exist, but I really don't care. I'd rather warn the user that
> > something bad is about to happen.
> >
> > As a data point to support this choice, directories aren't generally
> > skipped when searching the PATH. So why should we?
>
> What do you mean?
>
> /tmp % mkdir executable nostromo 17:43
> /tmp % PATH=/tmp which executable nostromo 17:43
> executable not found
> /tmp % which -a which nostromo Err 1
> which: shell built-in command
> /usr/bin/which
> /tmp % PATH=/tmp /usr/bin/which executable nostromo 17:44
> /tmp/executable
>
> Arg... Is this really good? Are there any other PATH walking
> programs behaving like this?
Is this behavior due to the hash cache? What if you rehash or hash -r?
Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
