Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:03:43PM -0700, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote:
My second post was specifically in response to the claim by mwoehlke
suggesting that the changes were "not an inconvenience". In this post
all the issues I mentioned were intended as illustrations of such
inconveniences, so there was even less implied expectation of somebody
acting on these. Note, that I wrote that I had already addressed the
issues caused by deliberate incompatibilities, all I intended to do was
point out that it *had been* inconvenient.
For the record, I was just trying to point out that the general
consensus around here seems to be 'don't use DOS paths in Cygwin', and
was using that to explain what I feel to be one major reason for the
change. I accept and acknowledge that this change may be inconvenient
for some people, but it is also my opinion that if you are affected by
it, you are doing something that was never condoned or officially
supported in the first place. (And, after all, WJM. ;-))
I am glad you got things working and (I assume, since you say things are
working) looking POSIX-like.
Personally, every time I see mention of someone using DOS paths in
Cygwin, or a Cygwin program, I wonder to myself why this works at all :-).
--
Matthew
Warning: This message has not been approved by the FDA.
--
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/
