Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/05/23/12:54:00
On May 21 18:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On May 21 11:55, Lev Bishop wrote:
> > On 5/21/07, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
> > >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.
> > >
> > >Did I miss one?
> >
> > What about -s?
>
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-05/msg00525.html
>
> > As i hinted in my previous message, the flags handling in cygpath is
> > inconsistent.
> > [...]
>
> Right, I noticed most of your observations when looking into the source
> code. I'm going to rewrite the option handling to be consistent.
> Sorta. Most of the time at least. Stay tuned.
Done. The rules have changed slightly, but should be consistent now.
The option handling when reading from files (-o -f ...) is now identical
to the option handling from the the command line, except that the -o and
-f options are invalid when reading from a file.
Please give cygpath.exe from the next developer's snapshot a try. I'd
be curious what bugs I introduced.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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 -