Robert Collins wrote: > >>given with Cygwin run the same 'on cygwin' as they do on any >> > Uni* -like > >>platform (and therefore general documentation 'out there' will apply >> > too), > >>From experience on this list, I can assert that this is an unsafe > assumption. Many many many questions are asked that are solveable by > simple examination of existing documentation - like the recent lex->flex > question (while I didn't know that answer, that's gotta be a flex FAQ!). >
Well, I'm sorry about asking, but I'd been looking for the key to that for 2 years, and only recently has cygwin come up to speed to be able to build and run my application. With the help of the latest incarnation of 'info flex' and recent improvements in vim syntax coloring, I did find both the latent bugs and the features which aren't supported exactly the same by lex and flex. If there were a flex FAQ or a flex mailing list, would it not show up on gcc.gnu.org or a newsgroup or google search? > >>BAL [By And Large] clearly DON'T want anymore to answer questions like >>"what does man do" or "how do I login to bash"). >> > > Good point. > But another one where there are minor gotchas for people who have 20 years experience on Unix with shells which pre-date free software. And, without experience specific to Cygwin, no one knows exactly which variations on the standard behavior of free software will apply on Cygwin. For example, has anyone documented the ways in which cygwin differs from linux in application of code and data alignments? Does anyone think the newlib mailing list is a helpful place? -- Tim Prince [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
