Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:19:14 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id: <3405-Mon01Sep2003191913+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20030901060253.43FAE90551@iceage.anubex.com>
	(tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be)
Subject: Re: /dev/c - c: or c:/ ?
References:  <20030901060253 DOT 43FAE90551 AT iceage DOT anubex DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:02:46 +0200
> 
> > What other way is there to express "c:" with the /dev/x notation?
> 
> Should there be one?

If there's a reason to disallow it, let's hear it.  If not, I'd
generally advise to refrain from gratuitous changes.

> The /dev/xxx notation is there for POSIX support

No, it's for programs and shell scripts which believe that every
absolute file name begins with a slash.

> again, does this mean that 'cd /dev/c' ends you in
> '/dev/c/Documents And Settings/Foo/Desktop'?  If so, that's one
> (good) reason for making /dev/c map to c:/.
> After all, unlike Cygwin (as far as I know), we still allow DOS-style
> paths, so users can still use c: if they need it.

Users can do that, but we introduced /dev/x for shell scripts.  What
if a shell script does a "cd /dev/c" for some reason?

I guess one important related question is what does `pwd' produce
when the current directory is "c:/"?