Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/05/21/12:12:49
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 21 15:46, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 21 May 2007 15:30, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> so we can change cygcheck to handle this unambiguously.
>> cygpath.
>
> Right. Unfortunately I just found that -m is sometimes used as a modifier
> (-dm makes sense) and sometimes standalone (-m instead of -w).
>
> Actually it seems to be better to disallow only combinations which
> explicitely don't make sense, but to allow any combination which make
> *some* sort of sense. The rules would be, afaics
>
> - Don't allow -d with -l.
> - Allow any other mix of -d, -l, -m and -w.
> - Don't allow -u with any of the above flags.
If you mean that '-[wm]+' (rexexpr syntax) means '-m', that's what I
thought made the most sense. IOW '-w' defaults to '\' but does not
override '-m', and '-m' implies '-w' unless otherwise specified.
Actually I see no problem with '-um', it's just a no-op because '-u'
means '-m' anyway. Even '-lu' and '-su' are actually valid...
So...
'-w' and '-u' are mutually exclusive.
'-s', '-l', '-m' imply '-w' unless '-u' used
'-d' is an alias for '-ws'
Examples:
cygpath -su 'c:\program files'
--> /cygdrive/c/PROGRA~1 # valid path!
cygpath -dm 'c:\program files'
--> C:/PROGRA~1
--
Matthew
When in doubt, duct tape!
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -