Re: feature request: file_not_found_handle()

[Chet Ramey]

On 8/14/13 7:44 AM, Andreas Gregor Frank wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> i think a file_not_found_handle() or a modified command_not_found_handle(),
> that does not need an unsuccessful PATH search to be triggered, would be
> useful and consistent.

The original rationale for command_not_found_handle is that there was no
other way to determine whether a command could be found with a PATH search.
(well, no easy way).

A PATH search is suppressed when the command to be executed contains a
slash: the presence of a slash indicates an absolute pathname that is
directly passed to exec().  Since there's no search done, you know exactly
which pathname you're attempting to execute, and you can easily test
whether or not it exists and is executable.

Is there enough demand to make this feature addition worthwhile?

Chet

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/