Message-ID: <4C894A05.10504@fgm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:56:37 -0400
From: Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100825 SeaMonkey/2.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: Windows-style pathname does not work as command - why?
References: <4C7FE2C2.8060104@fgm.com>	<4C7FE938.6060806@redhat.com> <20100902211830.GC527@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>	<4C87B2A3.1050702@fgm.com> <4C87BB59.1020808@cygwin.com> <AANLkTi=uqk0JjWhCG96OxVWeG-JrdpCNp-XZfuyjfF7k@mail.gmail.com> <4C87DA5D.2070204@cygwin.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C87DA5D.2070204@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 9/8/2010 1:24 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 8 September 2010 17:35, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>>> Isn't the whole reason for Cygwin actually to enable doing Unixy things
>>>> in Windows (that is, providing Windows/Unix interoperablity?
>>>
>>> No, that's not a key goal. From the Cygwin main web page:
>>>
>>> Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows
>>
>> Well, I (and my employer) would not be using Cygwin if it wasn't for
>> the Windows integration, in particular the ability to plug POSIX and
>> Windows programs together.
>>
>> If I just wanted to run Linux software on Windows, I'd use a virtual
>> machine or coLinux. While Cygwin's lower resource usage is nice to
>> have, that's easily outweighed by the inevitable compatibility and
>> performance drawbacks that come with building on top of Win32.
>
> There are allot of different reasons people choose to use Cygwin.
> However, as a product (and I'm not suggesting anything commercially
> motivated here when using that term), it has some key design goals.
> They are the ones I quoted from the main page on the Cygwin web site.
> There are others that are secondary goals. Interoperability
> is certainly one. But Windows/DOS-style path support is not the
> "whole reason" for Cygwin as the OP suggested.

I did NOT say that Windows/DOS-style path support was the whole reason
for Cygwin.  Pay attention to your quoting/paraphrasing.


 > It is, rather, a
> case where the primary goals of Linux compatibility require a choice
> to be made and in this case the choice is POSIX-style paths trump
> Windows/DOS-style paths anywhere the support cost is too high for
> the latter.
>
> The general argument of Windows interoperability in Cygwin has been
> discussed on the list in the past. I'm not trying to re-open those
> threads or start a new flame war on the subject. I'm only trying to
> correct a misconception of the OP with regards to accepted path syntax.
> I hope that's clear now.

Not yet.  Cygpath certainly supports Windows-style paths.  Are you
claiming that places like that are the only place that it is "accepted"
to use Windows-styles paths (that is, if something like "ls 'C:\x\y'" quit
working, it likely wouldn't be fixed)?

Daniel


--
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