RE: Problems with echo. (echo period)

[Dave Korn]

On 17 April 2007 22:23, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> I suppose the "feature" that is missing is the ability to run shell
>> commands as they are defined by the shell that will be running the shell
>> commands.  Furthermore, the ability to more easily port our numerous
>> makefiles to use gnu make without having to jump through hoops because gnu
>> make doesn't fully support the shell that comes stock with all of our
>> developers computers... cmd.exe.     
> 
> ??? I'm confused: when cmd.exe is the shell, the `echo' command
> behaves _exactly_ like cmd's built-in `echo'.  In particular, if you
> type "echo" from the cmd command line, you will see exactly the same
> result ("echo is On") as what you see when the same command is run
> from a Makefile.  So GNU Make does, in fact, support the stock Windows
> shell, in that it runs shell commands as they are defined by the shell
> you are using.
> 
> What am I missing?


  Maybe it's something to do with the
shall-i-invoke-a-shell-command-because-of-redirection-or-other-tricky-stuff
vs. shall-i-just-invoke-the-command-executable-itself-directly decision stuff?

static char *sh_cmds_dos[] = { "break", "call", "cd", "chcp", "chdir", "cls",
                                 "copy", "ctty", "date", "del", "dir", "echo",
                                 "erase", "exit", "for", "goto", "if", "md",
                                 "mkdir", "path", "pause", "prompt", "rd",
                                 "rmdir", "rem", "ren", "rename", "set",
                                 "shift", "time", "type", "ver", "verify",
                                 "vol", ":", 0 };

  That won't match "echo.", no?  Yet it is still definitely a shell builtin.


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