X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:57:01 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: default PATH
Message-ID: <20060212115701.GQ14219@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <20060211204153 DOT GA14065 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <2A9FABB3664AF8459CBADA1CE4E402463D1BFA AT DF-MASTIFF-MSG DOT exchange DOT corp DOT microsoft DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2A9FABB3664AF8459CBADA1CE4E402463D1BFA@DF-MASTIFF-MSG.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Feb 11 15:24, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> cgf wrote:
> " So, I don't think this really answers Corinna's question.  I believe that
> " she was looking for documentation which stated that ;; was ignored, not
> " reasoning which implies it.
> 
> In the absence of the former, I'd hope the latter would be better than nothing.
> I'd also consider that the text from PATH ? counts as documentation, and
> conclusions drawn from the results of doing exactly what it says to be worth
> something.

It's interesting but the real conclusion drawn from that is still by
guessing.  I'm still curious if there exists some piece of description
from Microsoft as to how empty paths in %PATH% are handled.

> Right now, sloppy Windows paths with ;; happen to result in dot getting added
> to Cygwin paths, as you say.  This leads to Windows users with sloppy paths
> having their expectations being met but in a roundabout, somewhat arbitrary
> way.  I won't speculate on how many people have problems with ;;.  What I
> do think is that translating ;; as empty and explicitly prepending . is
> straightforward, faithful to Windows users expectations and more deterministic,
> since it doesn't rely on the side effects of sloppy installers.
> 
> However, as is often the case where backwards compatibility is paramount,
> doing nothing is a fine approach too.  Me, I have my dots in my paths where
> I want them, and don't have a sloppy Windows path anywhere.
> 
> " Also, while skipping empty elements is a trivial operation, it is not
> " without cost.  Every time that we have to guard the user against
> " something like this, we add another nail to the "cygwin is slow" coffin.
> 
> Performance matters, but I hesitate to invoke it against correctness.  That is,
> if there were consensus that skipping empty elements is the right answer, then
> I'd hope that Cygwin would skip empty elements, even if it is an extra if and
> a few more cycles in a common code path.  If there's no consensus on skipping
> empty elements, and absolutely everything else is equal, then sure, go with
> what's faster.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/