* RE: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
@ 2002-09-19 9:00 Scott Prive
2002-09-19 9:08 ` Igor Pechtchanski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Scott Prive @ 2002-09-19 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randall R Schulz, cygwin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:rrschulz@cris.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:30 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
>
>
> Scott,
>
> At 15:15 2002-09-18, Scott Prive wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I get this odd problem when calling NT commands from Cygwin. I am
> >single-quoting the data, but the way I'm doing things
> (probably wrong...)
> >does not like passing $1 function arguments to NT commands.
> If I hardcode
> >the arguments internally, everything works.
> >
> >The two example functions below are intended to behave identical.
> >
> >#!/bin sh
> >
> >mount_drive () {
> > # Syntax: net 'use' '*' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > net 'use' 'F:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> >
> > echo "The command returned $?"
> > return $?;
> >}
>
> Note that the status ($?) you're returning from the
> "mount_drive" shell
> procedure is that of the "echo" command, not that printed
> _by_ the echo
> command.
>
> The only arguments in this example for which quoting changes the net
> argument passed to the underlying command is the one that
> includes "redhat"
> and the asterisk. The others contain no special characters requiring
> quoting or escaping to inhibit special interpretation.
>
>
> >mount_drive2 () {
> > net '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5'
> > echo "we saw in mount_drive2: '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5' "
> >
> > echo "The command returned $?"
> > return $?;
> >}
>
> The same "$?" issue exists here, of course.
>
> You need to be aware of the difference between 'single
> quotes' and "double
> quotes." Variable expansion is inhibited in single-quoted
> arguments, but
> not in double-quoted ones. Furthermore, double quoted
> arguments protect
> single quotes, making the non-special. So you've probably
> confused yourself
> into thinking that in this example the "net" command saw the
> arguments you
> passed to the "mount_drive2" procedure. It did not. It saw
> arguments each
> consisting of a dollar sign followed by a digit. Then you
> echoed a single
> argument composed of some fixed text, some single quote marks
> and some
> expanded positional parameters.
Doh!
Thanks. A good nights sleep and coffee got me thinking about this on the way to work, and then I read your post.
I misled myself because the ECHO command "worked". A debugging habit from Perl is I would print out my variables. Since the echo worked, I never questioned what I was doing with quotes.
I assumed quotes controlled how data gets sent to commands, but apparently that's an oversimplification: quotes protect data being sent to a NEW PROCESS.. and builtins like "echo" are NOT a new process (`type echo). This explains why the echo command understood what the heck was inside '$2', but the echo command did not.
Of course you know this; I'm just filling in the blanks for the benefit of mailing list and Google searches. For all of last night, I actually believed the problem was due to mixing NT commands and Cygwin.
Thanks again.
>
>
> >#
> >mount_drive
> >mount_drive2 'use' 'G:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> >############# END SCRIPT
> >
> >
> >the output I get from mount_drive2 is standard "usage info",
> indicating I
> >passed arguments incorrectly. However the debug echo *looks* correct.
> >
> >Someone please point out my mistake, else I'm doomed to some
> ugly hackish
> >workarounds ;-)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Scott
>
>
> Randall Schulz
> Mountain View, CA USA
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* RE: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
2002-09-19 9:00 dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands Scott Prive
@ 2002-09-19 9:08 ` Igor Pechtchanski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Igor Pechtchanski @ 2002-09-19 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Prive; +Cc: cygwin
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Scott Prive wrote:
> I assumed quotes controlled how data gets sent to commands, but
> apparently that's an oversimplification: quotes protect data being sent
> to a NEW PROCESS.. and builtins like "echo" are NOT a new process (`type
> echo). This explains why the echo command understood what the heck was
> inside '$2', but the echo command did not.
Not quite. In most shells, the builtin commands are subjected to the same
quoting rules as the external commands (there are some exceptions, but I
believe echo isn't one of them). What was happening in your case was that
on the echo command line, the shell was getting single quotes inside
double quotes, and thus treated them as regular characters (expanding the
vars within the DOUBLE quotes). When you called your program, on the
other hand, the shell was getting the variables in SINGLE quotes only,
thus avoiding the expansion.
You should have called both echo and net in the same way:
net "$1" "$2" "$3" "$4" "$5"
echo "we saw in mount_drive2:" "$1" "$2" "$3" "$4" "$5"
or, better yet,
[ $# -eq 5 ] || (echo "Invalid number of arguments" >&2 && exit 2)
net "$@"
echo "we saw in mount_drive2: $@"
Hope this helps.
Igor
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Scott Prive wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:rrschulz@cris.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:30 PM
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
> >
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > At 15:15 2002-09-18, Scott Prive wrote:
> >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I get this odd problem when calling NT commands from Cygwin. I am
> > >single-quoting the data, but the way I'm doing things
> > (probably wrong...)
> > >does not like passing $1 function arguments to NT commands.
> > If I hardcode
> > >the arguments internally, everything works.
> > >
> > >The two example functions below are intended to behave identical.
> > >
> > >#!/bin sh
> > >
> > >mount_drive () {
> > > # Syntax: net 'use' '*' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > > net 'use' 'F:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > >
> > > echo "The command returned $?"
> > > return $?;
> > >}
> >
> > Note that the status ($?) you're returning from the
> > "mount_drive" shell
> > procedure is that of the "echo" command, not that printed
> > _by_ the echo
> > command.
> >
> > The only arguments in this example for which quoting changes the net
> > argument passed to the underlying command is the one that
> > includes "redhat"
> > and the asterisk. The others contain no special characters requiring
> > quoting or escaping to inhibit special interpretation.
> >
> >
> > >mount_drive2 () {
> > > net '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5'
> > > echo "we saw in mount_drive2: '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5' "
> > >
> > > echo "The command returned $?"
> > > return $?;
> > >}
> >
> > The same "$?" issue exists here, of course.
> >
> > You need to be aware of the difference between 'single
> > quotes' and "double
> > quotes." Variable expansion is inhibited in single-quoted
> > arguments, but
> > not in double-quoted ones. Furthermore, double quoted
> > arguments protect
> > single quotes, making the non-special. So you've probably
> > confused yourself
> > into thinking that in this example the "net" command saw the
> > arguments you
> > passed to the "mount_drive2" procedure. It did not. It saw
> > arguments each
> > consisting of a dollar sign followed by a digit. Then you
> > echoed a single
> > argument composed of some fixed text, some single quote marks
> > and some
> > expanded positional parameters.
>
> Doh!
>
> Thanks. A good nights sleep and coffee got me thinking about this on the
> way to work, and then I read your post.
>
> I misled myself because the ECHO command "worked". A debugging habit
> from Perl is I would print out my variables. Since the echo worked, I
> never questioned what I was doing with quotes.
>
> I assumed quotes controlled how data gets sent to commands, but
> apparently that's an oversimplification: quotes protect data being sent
> to a NEW PROCESS.. and builtins like "echo" are NOT a new process (`type
> echo). This explains why the echo command understood what the heck was
> inside '$2', but the echo command did not.
>
> Of course you know this; I'm just filling in the blanks for the benefit
> of mailing list and Google searches. For all of last night, I actually
> believed the problem was due to mixing NT commands and Cygwin.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> >
> >
> > >#
> > >mount_drive
> > >mount_drive2 'use' 'G:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > >############# END SCRIPT
> > >
> > >
> > >the output I get from mount_drive2 is standard "usage info",
> > indicating I
> > >passed arguments incorrectly. However the debug echo *looks* correct.
> > >
> > >Someone please point out my mistake, else I'm doomed to some
> > ugly hackish
> > >workarounds ;-)
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Scott
> >
> >
> > Randall Schulz
> > Mountain View, CA USA
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> >
> >
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Water molecules expand as they grow warmer" (C) Popular Science, Oct'02, p.51
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
@ 2002-09-19 9:28 Scott Prive
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Scott Prive @ 2002-09-19 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Yes that helped; thanks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Pechtchanski [mailto:pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:00 PM
> To: Scott Prive
> Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: RE: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Scott Prive wrote:
>
> > I assumed quotes controlled how data gets sent to commands, but
> > apparently that's an oversimplification: quotes protect
> data being sent
> > to a NEW PROCESS.. and builtins like "echo" are NOT a new
> process (`type
> > echo). This explains why the echo command understood what
> the heck was
> > inside '$2', but the echo command did not.
>
> Not quite. In most shells, the builtin commands are
> subjected to the same
> quoting rules as the external commands (there are some
> exceptions, but I
> believe echo isn't one of them). What was happening in your
> case was that
> on the echo command line, the shell was getting single quotes inside
> double quotes, and thus treated them as regular characters
> (expanding the
> vars within the DOUBLE quotes). When you called your program, on the
> other hand, the shell was getting the variables in SINGLE quotes only,
> thus avoiding the expansion.
>
> You should have called both echo and net in the same way:
>
> net "$1" "$2" "$3" "$4" "$5"
> echo "we saw in mount_drive2:" "$1" "$2" "$3" "$4" "$5"
>
> or, better yet,
>
> [ $# -eq 5 ] || (echo "Invalid number of arguments" >&2 && exit 2)
> net "$@"
> echo "we saw in mount_drive2: $@"
>
> Hope this helps.
> Igor
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Scott Prive wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:rrschulz@cris.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:30 PM
> > > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > > Subject: Re: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin +
> NT commands
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > At 15:15 2002-09-18, Scott Prive wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hello,
> > > >
> > > >I get this odd problem when calling NT commands from Cygwin. I am
> > > >single-quoting the data, but the way I'm doing things
> > > (probably wrong...)
> > > >does not like passing $1 function arguments to NT commands.
> > > If I hardcode
> > > >the arguments internally, everything works.
> > > >
> > > >The two example functions below are intended to behave identical.
> > > >
> > > >#!/bin sh
> > > >
> > > >mount_drive () {
> > > > # Syntax: net 'use' '*' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > > > net 'use' 'F:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > > >
> > > > echo "The command returned $?"
> > > > return $?;
> > > >}
> > >
> > > Note that the status ($?) you're returning from the
> > > "mount_drive" shell
> > > procedure is that of the "echo" command, not that printed
> > > _by_ the echo
> > > command.
> > >
> > > The only arguments in this example for which quoting
> changes the net
> > > argument passed to the underlying command is the one that
> > > includes "redhat"
> > > and the asterisk. The others contain no special
> characters requiring
> > > quoting or escaping to inhibit special interpretation.
> > >
> > >
> > > >mount_drive2 () {
> > > > net '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5'
> > > > echo "we saw in mount_drive2: '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5' "
> > > >
> > > > echo "The command returned $?"
> > > > return $?;
> > > >}
> > >
> > > The same "$?" issue exists here, of course.
> > >
> > > You need to be aware of the difference between 'single
> > > quotes' and "double
> > > quotes." Variable expansion is inhibited in single-quoted
> > > arguments, but
> > > not in double-quoted ones. Furthermore, double quoted
> > > arguments protect
> > > single quotes, making the non-special. So you've probably
> > > confused yourself
> > > into thinking that in this example the "net" command saw the
> > > arguments you
> > > passed to the "mount_drive2" procedure. It did not. It saw
> > > arguments each
> > > consisting of a dollar sign followed by a digit. Then you
> > > echoed a single
> > > argument composed of some fixed text, some single quote marks
> > > and some
> > > expanded positional parameters.
> >
> > Doh!
> >
> > Thanks. A good nights sleep and coffee got me thinking
> about this on the
> > way to work, and then I read your post.
> >
> > I misled myself because the ECHO command "worked". A debugging habit
> > from Perl is I would print out my variables. Since the echo
> worked, I
> > never questioned what I was doing with quotes.
> >
> > I assumed quotes controlled how data gets sent to commands, but
> > apparently that's an oversimplification: quotes protect
> data being sent
> > to a NEW PROCESS.. and builtins like "echo" are NOT a new
> process (`type
> > echo). This explains why the echo command understood what
> the heck was
> > inside '$2', but the echo command did not.
> >
> > Of course you know this; I'm just filling in the blanks for
> the benefit
> > of mailing list and Google searches. For all of last night,
> I actually
> > believed the problem was due to mixing NT commands and Cygwin.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >#
> > > >mount_drive
> > > >mount_drive2 'use' 'G:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> > > >############# END SCRIPT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >the output I get from mount_drive2 is standard "usage info",
> > > indicating I
> > > >passed arguments incorrectly. However the debug echo
> *looks* correct.
> > > >
> > > >Someone please point out my mistake, else I'm doomed to some
> > > ugly hackish
> > > >workarounds ;-)
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > Randall Schulz
> > > Mountain View, CA USA
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
> |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
> ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com
> |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
>
> "Water molecules expand as they grow warmer" (C) Popular
> Science, Oct'02, p.51
>
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread[parent not found: <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5AD63A01@xchangeserver2.stor igen.com>]
* RE: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
[not found] <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5AD63A01@xchangeserver2.stor igen.com>
@ 2002-09-19 9:25 ` Randall R Schulz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Randall R Schulz @ 2002-09-19 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Prive, cygwin
Scott,
[ This is off-topic for the Cygwin list, since it has nothing to do with
Cygwin per se, but I feel the need to correct misconceptions for other
newcomers to a Unix / POSIX (-like) environment, so I'm replying to the
list, not just Scott. -- Randall ]
At 08:12 2002-09-19, Scott Prive wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
>...
>
>Doh!
>
>Thanks. A good nights sleep and coffee got me thinking about this on the
>way to work, and then I read your post.
>
>I misled myself because the ECHO command "worked". A debugging habit from
>Perl is I would print out my variables. Since the echo worked, I never
>questioned what I was doing with quotes.
>
>I assumed quotes controlled how data gets sent to commands, but apparently
>that's an oversimplification: quotes protect data being sent to a NEW
>PROCESS.. and builtins like "echo" are NOT a new process (`type echo).
>This explains why the echo command understood what the heck was inside
>'$2', but the echo command did not.
Not quite. The "echo" command printed the values of the positional
parameters because the single quotes that immediately surrounded them were
rendered into literal characters in the single argument to echo by the use
of a pair of double quotes enclosing that whole (single) argument to echo.
If you remove those double quotes, you'll see echo printing the $1, $2
(literally).
The shell most certainly does not treat built-in and external commands
differently as far as argument and I/O redirection (e.g.) are concerned.
>Of course you know this; I'm just filling in the blanks for the benefit of
>mailing list and Google searches. For all of last night, I actually
>believed the problem was due to mixing NT commands and Cygwin.
>
>Thanks again.
You're welcome.
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5AC1E21A@xchangeserver2.stor igen.com>]
* Re: dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
[not found] <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5AC1E21A@xchangeserver2.stor igen.com>
@ 2002-09-18 16:17 ` Randall R Schulz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Randall R Schulz @ 2002-09-18 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cygwin
Scott,
At 15:15 2002-09-18, Scott Prive wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I get this odd problem when calling NT commands from Cygwin. I am
>single-quoting the data, but the way I'm doing things (probably wrong...)
>does not like passing $1 function arguments to NT commands. If I hardcode
>the arguments internally, everything works.
>
>The two example functions below are intended to behave identical.
>
>#!/bin sh
>
>mount_drive () {
> # Syntax: net 'use' '*' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
> net 'use' 'F:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
>
> echo "The command returned $?"
> return $?;
>}
Note that the status ($?) you're returning from the "mount_drive" shell
procedure is that of the "echo" command, not that printed _by_ the echo
command.
The only arguments in this example for which quoting changes the net
argument passed to the underlying command is the one that includes "redhat"
and the asterisk. The others contain no special characters requiring
quoting or escaping to inhibit special interpretation.
>mount_drive2 () {
> net '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5'
> echo "we saw in mount_drive2: '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5' "
>
> echo "The command returned $?"
> return $?;
>}
The same "$?" issue exists here, of course.
You need to be aware of the difference between 'single quotes' and "double
quotes." Variable expansion is inhibited in single-quoted arguments, but
not in double-quoted ones. Furthermore, double quoted arguments protect
single quotes, making the non-special. So you've probably confused yourself
into thinking that in this example the "net" command saw the arguments you
passed to the "mount_drive2" procedure. It did not. It saw arguments each
consisting of a dollar sign followed by a digit. Then you echoed a single
argument composed of some fixed text, some single quote marks and some
expanded positional parameters.
>#
>mount_drive
>mount_drive2 'use' 'G:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
>############# END SCRIPT
>
>
>the output I get from mount_drive2 is standard "usage info", indicating I
>passed arguments incorrectly. However the debug echo *looks* correct.
>
>Someone please point out my mistake, else I'm doomed to some ugly hackish
>workarounds ;-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Scott
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands
@ 2002-09-18 15:40 Scott Prive
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Scott Prive @ 2002-09-18 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cygwin
Hello,
I get this odd problem when calling NT commands from Cygwin. I am single-quoting the data, but the way I'm doing things (probably wrong...) does not like passing $1 function arguments to NT commands. If I hardcode the arguments internally, everything works.
The two example functions below are intended to behave identical.
#!/bin sh
mount_drive () {
# Syntax: net 'use' '*' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
net 'use' 'F:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
echo "The command returned $?"
return $?;
}
mount_drive2 () {
net '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5'
echo "we saw in mount_drive2: '$1' '$2' '$3' '$4' '$5' "
echo "The command returned $?"
return $?;
}
#
mount_drive
mount_drive2 'use' 'G:' '\\redhat\foo' 'foo' '/user:foo'
############# END SCRIPT
the output I get from mount_drive2 is standard "usage info", indicating I passed arguments incorrectly. However the debug echo *looks* correct.
Someone please point out my mistake, else I'm doomed to some ugly hackish workarounds ;-)
Thanks,
Scott
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-19 16:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-09-19 9:00 dumb escaping question when using Cygwin + NT commands Scott Prive
2002-09-19 9:08 ` Igor Pechtchanski
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-19 9:28 Scott Prive
[not found] <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5AD63A01@xchangeserver2.stor igen.com>
2002-09-19 9:25 ` Randall R Schulz
[not found] <7BFCE5F1EF28D64198522688F5449D5AC1E21A@xchangeserver2.stor igen.com>
2002-09-18 16:17 ` Randall R Schulz
2002-09-18 15:40 Scott Prive
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).