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 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <3A9D909C.B76B1DE9@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:58:20 -0500 From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: Earnie Boyd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: New symlinks. References: <20010228232954.A344@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20010228183953.D5603@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Christopher Faylor wrote: > > 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. > And should be the only issue left to discuss. If ln -s foo bar then ls -l bar.lnk should output ls: bar.lnk: No such file or directory because the user should not be concerned with implementation and from the users point of view bar.lnk doesn't exist. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple