RE: Problems with echo. (echo period)

[Dave Korn]

On 21 April 2007 10:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

[ got left sitting in my drafts folder over the weekend. ]

>> From: "Dave Korn" 
>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:18:01 +0100
>> On 20 April 2007 17:15, Aaron Shatters wrote:
>> 
>>> As I noted previously, there are many workarounds to this problem.  I am
>>> interested in fixing the root cause.  After all of this investigation, do
>>> we have consensus that this is a limitation of make?  More importantly, do
>>> we have consensus that it should be fixed?  We seem to have run out of
>>> reasons for not fixing this problem.
>> 
>>   Since "echo." is clearly a shell builtin, and since the code is supposed
>> to recognize shell builtins and hand them off to the shell, I would support
>> fixing this in the source.
> 
> I don't think "echo." is a shell builtin.  It is a peculiar feature of
> the cmd.exe command parser.

  This is a semantic quibble.  The shell builtin is "echo", "echo." is an
alternative form, and the main point is:

On 21 April 2007 10:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Aaron Shatters 
>> 
>> As I noted previously, there are many workarounds to this problem.  I am
>> interested in fixing the root cause.  After all of this investigation, do
>> we have consensus that this is a limitation of make?  More importantly, do
>> we have consensus that it should be fixed?  We seem to have run out of
>> reasons for not fixing this problem.    
> 
> No, I don't agree that this is a limitation of Make.  Make just
> invokes the shell built-in, and the shell built-in behaves like it
> does from the command line.

  Actually, if we're talking about "echo.", make *fails* to invoke the shell
builtin, and ends up invoking an executable of the same name that's on the
path.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....