X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; q=dns; s=default; b=kATnqKYOR5vt8+MtnbJN6aaej7h5G OTdl3KCo5gh4rYJ0OMDRuHvvj0lPYVFRlGCHpXaPu24lYNm1VnATKs3tVbuy3u/o fZM516QHSq484pRH1A5wa0CLwEXvAJ0W29J1D9LIwCtkcEnay6J9W5BB9YYuLoTS jnhe7EgHapSRyE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version; s=default; bh=GBdlVl44acDvnQZwqYYisdgDRvs=; b=Cox az8Z5gFIAXYgEX3NUL0tValqqrYOg9TXS54R2+P1RECvogNe/5QuUPJOPDUtpPfD P98v9a5JX4F1bt1cAW8/rP7xl2JRchP8rZpisQtfoU8OxVZB4sXTx6AontOBkz2i eVhdBTPqhJneV2y/jWc7Mq2EIdWSFbv3kRVoYoo8= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,MIME_BASE64_BLANKS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:57C0492, HX-Envelope-From:sk:Kenneth, H*MI:sk:57C0492, H*i:sk:57C0492 X-HELO: USA7109MR004.ACS-INC.COM From: "Nellis, Kenneth" To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" Subject: RE: cygpath -w and .exe magic Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:35:43 +0000 Message-ID: <0D835E9B9CD07F40A48423F80D3B5A704BB92686@USA7109MB022.na.xerox.net> References: <57C04920 DOT 1040500 AT gmx DOT de> In-Reply-To: <57C04920.1040500@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id u7QEZv1T014188 From: Herbert Stocker > On 26.08.2016 15:19, Lee Dilkie wrote: > > and break everyone who has existing code to take care of this? > > If it is done, it should be done as an additional option, i'd say. Of course a new option, duh! ☺ But my feeble brain is failing to imagine a case where this would break anything, unless the user solution would turn a returned foo.exe into foo.exe.exe, which seems doubtful. --Ken Nellis