On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:15:52PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 01 May 2007 14:59, Charles Wilson wrote: >>Because python is a command interpreter,
>>Similarly, sh.exe > >I think these are two very strong arguments in favour. python.exe isn't anything like the interactive shell that people use on a day to day basis and simply stating that it is doesn't mean that it is. The only reason that I can see for making a copy would be to support the use of python in a .bat file. Otherwise you could always just do python<TAB> from the command line. >I note that we already (appear to?) do the same for perl. Ok. I agree that is an argument in favor since I don't recall many complaints about perl. It is a simple copy though, AFAICT. I've registered my objections now and I'll leave the decision to the maintainer. >(/me remembers back to the insane gyrations I had to go through a >couple of years ago when I had to setup makefiles for my clients who >wanted to invoke them from cmd.exe using --win32 and have them work on >systems that could have either cygwin python or active python or both >and they could come in any order in the path.... <shudder>) This isn't really relevant to the discussion since the cygwin version of make wouldn't have any problem with symlinks. 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/
