Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010227113035.017a9aa0@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:31:20 -0500 To: Earnie Boyd From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: New symlinks In-Reply-To: <3A9BCF7E.14BC5D25@yahoo.com> References: <20010227002258 DOT A8991 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:02 AM 2/27/2001, you wrote: >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. Sorry for the "me too" but I thought its important to "weigh in" as well. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple