Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/05/08/02:38:57
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 5:19 PM
>>To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>>Subject: Re: A proposal for a Cygnus naming convention
>>
>>
>>On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:32:00AM +0200, Mellman Thomas wrote:
>>>Given the registry name:
>>>
>>>
>>>HKLM\software\Cygnus solutions\cygwin\mounts v2\/
>>>
>>>
>>>May I suggest that the blank in the name is superfluous and
>>problematic
>>>for processing by Unix-type tools - even in the registry. Bill may
>>>feel vindicated that *his* OS tolerates blanks, but does it
>>really add
>>>significant readibility?
>>
>>You can suggest anything, however, what you are suggesting
>>makes no sense:
>>
>>1) The cygwin registry entry is not intended to be manipulated by
>> "Unix-type tools". Use *mount* if you want to manipulate it.
>>
>>2) Changing the name would break backwards compatibility.
>>
>>3) Even if you wanted to use "Unix-type" tools, a space is
>>really not an
>> obstacle. Unix certainly can deal with spaces.
>>
>>So, bottom line is that there is absolutely no way that we'll
>>be changing
>>anything. You should just be considering the registry to be
>>a black box,
>>anyway. The cygwin DLL deals just fine with the current scheme.
I didn't mean to say that anything needs to be changed. It was
only a suggestion for the future. But to suggest that the registry
is a black box is simply gates-ian. That's a big advantage of unix:
it doesn't try to hide things from the users. Hopefully, cygwin
developers aren't so close that they're seduced by the dark side.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -