Re: PATHEXT is fundamental to Windows and Should be recognised by CYGWIN

[Marco Atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>]

On 05/08/2016 21:43, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 11:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug  5 11:20, Michel LaBarre wrote:
> > > Hello cygsimple,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
> > > I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your recognition of PATHEXT's potential value;
> > > reassuring to know I am not alone in my delusions.
> > >
> > > Regarding providing code, I am somewhat stale (though I spent my first 20 work years
> > > immersed in system code, assembly/C/Algol/Pascal/C++, building firmware for bit-sliced processors, etc.)
> > >
> > > The patch to which I referred is one I found while researching the topic;
> > > https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-09/msg00127.html is one reference to it.
> > > It is old and likely out of date.
> >
> > That.  Plus, the refusal from cgf is still valid today.  If you see the
> > code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
> > PATHEXT support anymore.
>
> I've seen that code and I still think it would be worthwhile to support
> PATHEXT.

I have the impression you are really underestimating the
negative consequence to add additional burden on the current code.


Regards
Marco




--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple