DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=A/C4J1I+JkrPIiMy
	Hh2ytJio0vxto41PxPUiHVL0dXcSrvAGOClVpmoF4chFHH8WujAQIYFFvnQ0Z3f0
	NtPvFjsYJ2EgKKXEv5sqkIfGsE40CHxOhYssnkeRpXermS6Km3wE47BzBU300rqc
	fw+rs0iGYBfFxAoa4X7Ye4OjZ20=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: PATHEXT is fundamental to Windows and Should be recognised by CYGWIN
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <001001d1edf1$a4e1ae90$eea50bb0$@rogers.com> <1C0AE95E-0118-4353-AA77-4D41F1AE9AE1@solidrocksystems.com> <001a01d1eea9$f7949a90$e6bdcfb0$@rogers.com> <76ec05e9-140a-19cb-942b-698582c3d024@gmail.com> <001f01d1ef2c$f04af9e0$d0e0eda0$@rogers.com> <20160805152951.GO25811@calimero.vinschen.de> <0c488787-0560-2c72-50ca-f5cd0a718104@gmail.com>
From: Marco Atzeri <marco.atzeri@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4f5b4aff-e79f-01c1-bf65-e285bfd6a5a7@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 22:28:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0c488787-0560-2c72-50ca-f5cd0a718104@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 05/08/2016 21:43, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 11:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug  5 11:20, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>>> Hello cygsimple,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
>>> I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your recognition of PATHEXT's potential value;
>>> reassuring to know I am not alone in my delusions.
>>>
>>> Regarding providing code, I am somewhat stale (though I spent my first 20 work years
>>> immersed in system code, assembly/C/Algol/Pascal/C++, building firmware for bit-sliced processors, etc.)
>>>
>>> The patch to which I referred is one I found while researching the topic;
>>> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-09/msg00127.html is one reference to it.
>>> It is old and likely out of date.
>>
>> That.  Plus, the refusal from cgf is still valid today.  If you see the
>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
>> PATHEXT support anymore.
>>
>
> I've seen that code and I still think it would be worthwhile to support
> PATHEXT.

I have the impression you are really underestimating the
negative consequence to add additional burden on the current code.


Regards
Marco


--
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