RE: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-08-01 Thread Felix Köhler
Hmm... I can't remember if there is a equiv. of $@ in DOS/BAT-files... WinNT/2k/XP: %* is the cmd.exe equivalent to bash $@ Have fun, Felix -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation:

RE: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-27 Thread Hannu E K Nevalainen \(garbage mail\)
From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:22 AM On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski --8-- What you could do is create an etags.bat that

RE: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-27 Thread Stephan Mueller
there for those cases when you need to write it in batch. stephan(); -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

RE: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-26 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Hannu E K Nevalainen (garbage mail) wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Igor Pechtchanski --8-- What you could do is create an etags.bat that runs 'bash -c etags %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9', put it in your PATH, and you should be

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-24 Thread Jeffery B. Rancier
Igor Pechtchanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jeffery B. Rancier wrote: Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a bug, unless you consider a Windows program not being able to understand Cygwin symbolic links a bug. I don't think there is much chance of changing

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-24 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Jeffery B. Rancier wrote: Igor Pechtchanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jeffery B. Rancier wrote: Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a bug, unless you consider a Windows program not being able to understand Cygwin symbolic links a

DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-23 Thread Jeffery B. Rancier
cygcheck.out Description: Binary data -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-23 Thread Jeffery B. Rancier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffery B. Rancier) writes: It appears the list maintainer zapped my text? Here it is again: I installed ctags 5.5 today, after having problems with the Gnus Emacs etags not recognizing my cygwin mounts. It seems to work OK, but three times I received the following Windows

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-23 Thread Larry Hall
Jeffery B. Rancier wrote: -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ As a note for future reference, it is generally

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-23 Thread Larry Hall
Jeffery B. Rancier wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffery B. Rancier) writes: It appears the list maintainer zapped my text? Here it is again: I installed ctags 5.5 today, after having problems with the Gnus Emacs etags not recognizing my cygwin mounts. It seems to work OK, but three times I

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-23 Thread Jeffery B. Rancier
Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a bug, unless you consider a Windows program not being able to understand Cygwin symbolic links a bug. I don't think there is much chance of changing Windows to permit all applications a proper understanding though. I see. Why does it work at

Re: DLL 1.3.22 - etags 5.5.4 fails on XP Pro

2003-07-23 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Jeffery B. Rancier wrote: Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not a bug, unless you consider a Windows program not being able to understand Cygwin symbolic links a bug. I don't think there is much chance of changing Windows to permit all applications a proper