Re: address@hidden: rcs2log]

[Dr Francis J. Wright]

From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden>
To: "Dr Francis J. Wright" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/address@hidden>; "Juanma
Barranquero" <address@hidden>; "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden>;
<address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: address@hidden: rcs2log]


> > Why do you want to rename rcs2log to rcs2log.sh?  That seems to me to
make
> > the Windows installation more non-standard than necessary.
>
> I just assumed that if rcs2log stays as it is, it might be run
> instead of rcs2log.bat.  Whereas adding a .sh makes sure it won't
> be considered as an executable, so rcs2log.bat will be run instead.
> I agree that if it's not necessary, there's no point in making that
> change.


At first, I had exactly the same thought.  But a file with no extension is
never executable under Windows (as far as I am aware) and experiment
confirmed that it was not necessary to rename rcs2log.

Francis