delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:20:14 +0300 (IDT) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | Teun Burgers <burgers AT ecn DOT nl> |
cc: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: symlink() & is_v2_prog() question |
In-Reply-To: | <37CBBC80.C813B8BC@ecn.nl> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.990831161837.8097A-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Teun Burgers wrote: > !<symlink>x1/x2 > > How about being trying to be consistent with cygwin > in this respect? Compatibility is probably a goods idea. Is there a document somewhere that describes how symlinks are simulated by Cygwin? (I'm afraid of some hidden features that the above short description doesn't reveal.)
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |