On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 01:01:55PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >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 :-).
Could I get a gold star here? Thanks for explaining things, mwoehlke. cgf -- 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/
