| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm |
| List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
| List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/> |
| List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
| List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs> |
| Sender: | cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
| Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Feb 2001 00:22:58 -0500 |
| From: | Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> |
| To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Subject: | New symlinks |
| Message-ID: | <20010227002258.A8991@redhat.com> |
| Reply-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
| User-Agent: | Mutt/1.3.11i |
I've finally taken the time to play with the new symlinks. I like them! However, I noticed that when I do this: ln -s bar foo cat foo.lnk I get the contents of bar. Should I? Or should I get a "file not found"? Or should I get the contents of foo? This is somewhat analogous to cygwin's behavior with .exe in some situations but I'm not sure that we should ever expose the fact that a symlink now has a .lnk extension to the user. Comments? cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |