From:	papresco AT calum DOT csclub DOT uwaterloo DOT ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject:	Re: Absolute file-path under bash (cygwin32)
19 Apr 1997 09:35:04 -0700 :
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<335876B2.D805DF89.cygnus.gnu-win32@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
References:	<199704170243 DOT TAA05434 AT tcp DOT com> <m0wHwAY-0006uMC AT apple DOT statsci DOT com> <3356C745 DOT 2E4A AT netcom DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.0b3 [en] (Win95; I)
Original-To:	Jim Balter <jqb AT netcom DOT com>
Original-CC:	scott AT statsci DOT com, Hawkeye <hawkeye AT tcp DOT com>, jeffdb AT netzone DOT com,
	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

Jim Balter wrote:
> This discussion has become rather confused.  The topic *was*
> having *non*-cygwin programs understand *unix* path names, by,
> for instance hacking bash (I have faith that cygnus won't do this).

Threads shift. The question now is how to have a unified interface for
passing paths to programs. Do you feel that this is not a problem worth
solving or that there is a better solution than changing bash?

> b17 already groks DOS paths (device:, backslash); b18 will handle UNC
> paths (paths starting with double backslash).

Wouldn't that be a quadruple backslash (at least in bash)? Does that
mean that Cygwin apps will understand paths with backslashes in them or
that there is now a way to specify UNC paths so that Unix programs can
understand them -- but using a different syntax than you would use for
Windows programs.

 Paul Prescod


-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -