On Feb 22 13:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:16:25PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > >On 22 February 2006 17:31, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 08:21:48AM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: > >>>I think implementing openat() directly would be the clear win here, > >>>since the ".." processing seems to be such a landmine. Of course > >>>without a patch this is just hot air on my part. > >> > >>But, then, it has been at least a couple of months since we've had a > >>rousing discussion about how awful cygwin's '..' handling is, so it's > >>clearly time to go into great depth about how useful it would be if > >>cygwin just did things the RIGHT, the TRUE, the POSIX way. > > > >How many reinstalls does that usually take? ;-) > > You take the number of cygwin developers required to change a > POSIX-powered light bulb and multiply by 42.
I wouldn't want to waste a POSIX-powered light bulb for non-POSIX functions. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
