From: lhall AT rfk DOT com (Larry Hall)
Subject: RE: mount() semantics
22 Sep 1998 07:18:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980922095216.009f8360.cygnus.cygwin32.developers@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
References: <01BDE616 DOT 0011FDD0 AT sos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Sergey Okhapkin <sos AT prospect DOT com DOT ru>,
        "cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com" <cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com>,
        "'Geoffrey Noer'" <noer AT cygnus DOT com>

At 10:44 AM 9/22/98 +0400, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
>Geoffrey Noer wrote:
>> I am tempted to suggest requiring that /foo/bar exist as of b20,
>> modifying mount() in winsup accordingly.  That would have the
>> advantage of making mount()'s semantics much closer to Unix.  But it
>> would also have the disadvantage of requiring physical directory mount
>> points which could be a bummer to have to cope with.
>> 
>
>Even now many cygwin users creates "mount point" directories in order to filename completion in bash works.
>


I agree.  I don't see a problem with forcing mount in this direction.  
Since it has its roots in UNIX, making it work more like UNIX semantics
makes the use of the command less confusing rather than more...


Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                          (781) 239-1655 - FAX
Wellesley, MA  02482-7797               http://www.rfk.com