X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YG,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1284065798-589e5e320001-w5GHUG X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: daniel AT fgm DOT com X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 216.2.55.102 X-ASG-Whitelist: Client Message-ID: <4C894A05.10504@fgm.com> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 16:56:37 -0400 From: Daniel Barclay User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100825 SeaMonkey/2.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: Windows-style pathname does not work as command - why? References: <4C7FE2C2 DOT 8060104 AT fgm DOT com> <4C7FE938 DOT 6060806 AT redhat DOT com> <20100902211830 DOT GC527 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C87B2A3 DOT 1050702 AT fgm DOT com> <4C87BB59 DOT 1020808 AT cygwin DOT com> <4C87DA5D DOT 2070204 AT cygwin DOT com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Windows-style pathname does not work as command - why? In-Reply-To: <4C87DA5D.2070204@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: UNKNOWN[216.2.55.102] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1284065798 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA X-Barracuda-URL: http://spam.fgm.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > On 9/8/2010 1:24 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: >> On 8 September 2010 17:35, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>>> Isn't the whole reason for Cygwin actually to enable doing Unixy things >>>> in Windows (that is, providing Windows/Unix interoperablity? >>> >>> No, that's not a key goal. From the Cygwin main web page: >>> >>> Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows >> >> Well, I (and my employer) would not be using Cygwin if it wasn't for >> the Windows integration, in particular the ability to plug POSIX and >> Windows programs together. >> >> If I just wanted to run Linux software on Windows, I'd use a virtual >> machine or coLinux. While Cygwin's lower resource usage is nice to >> have, that's easily outweighed by the inevitable compatibility and >> performance drawbacks that come with building on top of Win32. > > There are allot of different reasons people choose to use Cygwin. > However, as a product (and I'm not suggesting anything commercially > motivated here when using that term), it has some key design goals. > They are the ones I quoted from the main page on the Cygwin web site. > There are others that are secondary goals. Interoperability > is certainly one. But Windows/DOS-style path support is not the > "whole reason" for Cygwin as the OP suggested. I did NOT say that Windows/DOS-style path support was the whole reason for Cygwin. Pay attention to your quoting/paraphrasing. > It is, rather, a > case where the primary goals of Linux compatibility require a choice > to be made and in this case the choice is POSIX-style paths trump > Windows/DOS-style paths anywhere the support cost is too high for > the latter. > > The general argument of Windows interoperability in Cygwin has been > discussed on the list in the past. I'm not trying to re-open those > threads or start a new flame war on the subject. I'm only trying to > correct a misconception of the OP with regards to accepted path syntax. > I hope that's clear now. Not yet. Cygpath certainly supports Windows-style paths. Are you claiming that places like that are the only place that it is "accepted" to use Windows-styles paths (that is, if something like "ls 'C:\x\y'" quit working, it likely wouldn't be fixed)? Daniel -- 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