Re: New symlinks.

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

Please don't try to use the fact that we have strange .exe behavior in
cygwin as an argument.  IMO, the behavior of .exe handling is really
unsubtly broken in cygwin.  The only reason that I don't fix it is that
I can't think of a good way to do this that won't impact performance.

I'd rather not introduce another subtle "What th'?" behavior in cygwin
if we can help it.

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:51:52PM -0800, John Paulson wrote:
>$ cat `type -p gcc` | wc
>cat: /usr/bin/gcc: No such file or directory
>       0       0       0
>
>-- Hmmm... A user might think something broke.  I have not done a search
>    of the archives to determine how often this asymmetry has been noted
>    by users.  I don't recall having seen this mentioned in the year or so
>    I've been subscribed, but then most of neurons have been fried by MFC...
>
>
>Therefore, using possibly faulty reasoning by analogy, I think that the
>missing lnk (sorry) solution will not cause as many problems as has been
>feared.  At least, not for those users who are dealing with symlinks in
>an interactive fashion.  In fact, the missing lnk will work better than
>the missing exe; the "cat ... | wc" examples above will work.

You've just demonstrated why .exe handling is surprising and why I
don't want to duplicate the behavior with .lnk.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple