Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Apparently-From: <earnie?boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Message-ID: <3A9BCF7E.14BC5D25@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:02:06 -0500
From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: Earnie Boyd <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: New symlinks
References: <20010227002258 DOT A8991 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> I've finally taken the time to play with the new symlinks.  I like them!
> 
> However, I noticed that when I do this:
> 
> ln -s bar foo
> cat foo.lnk
> 
> I get the contents of bar.
> 
> Should I?  Or should I get a "file not found"?  Or should I get
> the contents of foo?
> 

I would expect "file not found".  I had reported and Corinna made
changes but I haven't had the time to test them something similar.  I
would also expect that `ln -s bar foo.lnk' to physically produce
foo.lnk.lnk.


> This is somewhat analogous to cygwin's behavior with .exe in some
> situations but I'm not sure that we should ever expose the fact that a
> symlink now has a .lnk extension to the user.
> 
> Comments?
> 

I agree.

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