Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:39:53 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin Subject: Re: New symlinks. Message-ID: <20010228183953.D5603@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin References: <20010228232954.A344@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20010228232954.A344@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from cygwin@cygwin.com on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:29:54PM +0100 On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:29:54PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:22:32PM +0100, Heribert Dahms wrote: >> Yeah, and what should >> find . | xargs ls -ld >> find implicitly and write explicitly? > >It should implicitely find foo and explicitely write `foo' >since that is given from find to xargs. > >My point is simply iff somebody asks for foo.lnk _knowingly_ >Cygwin shouldn't react with `File not found'. That's the true >surprise IMO. That is the issue that I was raising initially. We can agree to disagree on this fact. It seems that people are currently speculating wildly without actually trying the current implementation. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple