Hello Andrew,
> Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
> of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present
> and in the path on Windows. The Windows equivalent would be something like:
>
> \setshell two\
> @set /a c = 1 + :one && echo %c%
Hmmm... Can we assume that echo is really always there on Windows? If so,
the attached patch does something only with "echo".
> I propose to prepare a patch along these lines. Alternatively we could
> just drop it - I don't think the test matters all that hugely.
The point is to have some minimal coverage so that unexpected changes are
caught. This is the only call to a working \setshell.
--
Fabien.