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 From: "Lothan" To: Subject: RE: New symlinks. Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:20:31 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-reply-To: <20010227114332.F10689@redhat.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal > From: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com > [mailto:cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:44 AM > To: Cygwin > Subject: Re: New symlinks. > > > >I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk > >suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found' > >on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth: > >The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink. > > Again, it is surprising behavior. Such a file would not exist on UNIX. > I personally think that we should hide implementation details like > "Oh yeah, we added a .lnk extension to all of our symbolic links" > from the user. There is no reason for them to know or care about > this detail. Perhaps this is true, but it does lead to a much nicer surprise. Let's say I have a link called ~/foo and some package (or me for that matter) wants to create a file called foo.lnk? It's a surprise to say that foo.lnk already exists since all I see is foo. It's a totally different surprise if foo suddenly gets overwritten by foo.lnk. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple