X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date
	:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=X9gx/gw6NH+MAPRXu2N0gHGjigCX/LyNUmvqAsJanLm
	22J0g5/XbHSpCu8uVQX6Y1EDxP+37Q7zD4vTJskD0emh7xdnX9fxPD6xP5mOBrBK
	n0CaUUUzUqA0w/oM8TRjCoMmlKmABMyaHezf7SZE6VM4pTON3+RTpd8DMxz0nxJg
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date
	:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=Ej9r4L98US5bn6smZqzL4OMaFWY=; b=pN02LVixcWfeCWG1N
	wB6VvwVA0RxxI42DZGB69d+e6V+5u3ku6sOrnTOhzT36OO5TKctHPe4uVgtvfOR4
	ytsW8pBrCg69lP7KcgKdBZYfdAtZt3ENom9E0RkSGykFoRc/JTf67qoilCw7Et4p
	oRt3sJKtTrPvYH9eL9cvJ+MOc0=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=from:sender:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language:x-gm-message-state; bh=mQFCDuBcteRW6yGhjaiCuiz0ASfvOheVkvjUVxSe9q4=; b=Jy0cR/GmOi7WIaveW5tfhh25MUYnQjavzKWdbU8kwmy70h/tWTKuOIY88XixhJSP6B ayxV5ySiEJl8P4qU1OFwjFscrmI3vShpAZZxbwWyAsQOJ9OjjO9FhdHV0RXxLBgPHk03 Vupuxj1iPvIksHyNGgIJmffV5rzjhc34wbymIdlCV9YOqCKMcfdX6bPE9fb6pKVCTgJX ofZAb7/Tgs/ku0mTpaI83qA8u45dq9FZPLG24VjFoxrrLBX2dh2QqANyTWq+N3X04ZpC IdCuzCchyw5R9OSUKQyq4DRDBpY++UXyKDDYktOGu9PAGdpmEyCeYfHPoYgC3G6aKT/I S1fg==
X-Received:	by 10.66.122.194 with SMTP id lu2mr146227pab.125.1371521895732; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	<gmt AT malth DOT us>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<003501ce6b5f$b41f2c10$1c5d8430$%fedin AT samsung DOT com> <kpn4kk$p88$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <036c01ce6b6d$0ada5090$208ef1b0$@malth.us> <kpnfp7$urd$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <03b201ce6b83$c5b62720$51227560$@malth.us> <51BF534E DOT 2030200 AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<51BF534E.2030200@cygwin.com>
Subject:	RE: UNC and POSIX paths
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:18:12 -0700
Message-ID:	<044001ce6bca$16c79ef0$4456dcd0$@malth.us>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Gm-Message-State:	ALoCoQkcnFSMg+X9PdD4hqW5SoVH8I9MYzmyU2Yaho70DlRmwLlwknmkqQUAQYdy6uzAiVjJa6OB

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, at 11:19, Larry Hall (Cygwin) thusly quipped:
> So it's a question of convenience vs correctness.  It seems the argument
offered
> is that it is convenient to allow incorrect scripts.  An alternate
argument could be
> made that it is equally convenient to continue having Cygwin correctly
interpret
> '//' as it has been.  In addition, since the UNC interpretation of paths
comes for
> free (it's a Windows feature), it would be pretty inconvenient to make
Cygwin
> work otherwise.
> 
> I don't think the convenience vs correctness argument is going to inspire
> someone to action. ;-)

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, at 12:01, Dan Kegel thusly quipped:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> I'm confused. Let me ask a different way - why not fix such scripts
instead?
>> That's all I'm asking.
> 
> He's probably daunted by the thought.
> 
> If he really wants to change the world here, he should consider writing a
tool
> that scanned for such problems, and lobbying to get it included in some
broadly
> used suite of checks like lintian.
> - Dan

Geez, tough ml.  If you are referring to me, you've misunderstood.

This was a rhetorical exercise, not an advocacy campaign :)  At no point
have I advocated not fixing broken scripts, or changing the world in any
way.  And I am undaunted by thoughts.  Mostly, I couldn't resist giving a
literal answer to Andrew's (maybe-not-so-literally-intended) question of
"why not fix it?" (nevertheless, I did fix it, already).

Plus, I reasoned that, as somebody who could have benefited from OP's
proposal in the past, I was in a good position to play devil's advocate (I
expected the other side of the argument would be adequately presented by
everyone else but me).

BTW, along the same lines, I stated previously it would break
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob_plain;f=m4/double-sl
ash-root.m4.  Turns out I was wrong, the m4 has a hard-coded list of
platforms.  So, I have to say, I can't think of one technical or merit-based
reason this shouldn't be done, aside from the fact that it's annoying to
hear it endlessly brought up on the mailing list (a problem which an
implementation would, in fact, solve, not exacerbate).

-gmt



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -