Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010525142409.020ae5d8@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: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:28:17 -0400
To: Matt <matt AT use DOT net>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: Bye bye //c?
Cc: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.30.0105251110180.13282-100000@cesium.clock.org>
References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010523222314 DOT 021322b0 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 02:13 PM 5/25/2001, Matt wrote:
> > At 03:56 PM 5/24/2001, Matt wrote:
> > >Would it make sense to use /dev/cygdrive for consistency?
> > >
> > >Just a suggestion.
> >
> > I'm confused.  What does this suggestion have to do with the question of
> > whether or not to remove the deprecated //<drive letter> notation?  We already
> > have the supported alternative of /cygdrive/<drive letter>.  What's this
> > /dev/cygdrive/<drive-letter> notation going to do for us that the current
> > notation doesn't and how does this all tie in to the question at hand?
>
>Please forgive me, I'll try to keep constructive suggestions off the
>developers list from now on. I thought it was an interesting idea,
>and wanted to express it before I forgot it. If I can't resist making a
>suggestion, I'll try to start a new thread by changing the subject line of
>the message.
>
>Please excuse the interruption.


Don't misinterpret my query.  My intent is not to admonish you for a 
suggestion, constructive or otherwise.  I just wasn't clear on how your
suggestion was pertinent to the subject at hand or the benefits of it over
the current facilities.  In other words, I was looking for clarification.
My apologies if you felt I was looking for something else.




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