On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:29:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That sounds sensible to me. I think it involves writing our own > > execvp, though, right? If we use stock execvp, we can't tell the > > difference between the two cases. > > The stock exec*p() will not hit "/bin/ls" in either case, so we will give > "'ls' is not a git command", without having to differenciate it. That is > what I meant by "we follow the usual rule to ignore it". > > We already have the code necessary to enumerate the possible commands from > components of the PATH in order to give suggestion, so we can run it > after seeing exec*p() failure to see if we did not see any "ls", or we saw > "ls" but it was not executable. No need to penalize the normal case, no? Yes, we can differentiate after the fact. Though I think it ends up being almost the same code as just implementing execvp in the first place. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html