On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 04:05:14AM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote: >Op Wed, 6 Oct 2004 10:58:05 -0400 schreef Christopher Faylor >in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:49:09AM +0200, Bas van Gompel wrote: > >[Empty path-components resolving to current dir.] > >: > (Maybe the message could get a ``-v'' addition like: ``This will >: > resolve to the current directory when in cygwin''.) > >s/-v/-h/. (I'm waiting for the other (trailing slash) patch to be >applied or rejected, before submitting this.)
I missed the part about the warning before but I *really* don't think we need to warn the user about standard UNIX behavior in cygcheck. That is really not what's for. >: I see that Corinna has checked this in but I really don't see the need >: for a warning for a perfectly acceptable use of an empty PATH component. >: >: Why are we bothering with this? > >If I may attempt to answer this one... Many people may not know of >this usage, yet may have their windows path ending on a ';'. I'm sure the same thing is true on UNIX and yet it has survived for years without a unicheck program informing people of this fact. cgf
