On May 21 17:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On May 21 15:46, Dave Korn wrote: > > On 21 May 2007 15:30, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > so we can change cygcheck to handle this unambiguously. > > > > cygpath. > > Right. Unfortunately I just found that -m is sometimes used as a modifier > (-dm makes sense) and sometimes standalone (-m instead of -w). > > Actually it seems to be better to disallow only combinations which > explicitely don't make sense, but to allow any combination which make > *some* sort of sense. The rules would be, afaics > > - Don't allow -d with -l. > - Allow any other mix of -d, -l, -m and -w. > - Don't allow -u with any of the above flags. > > Did I miss one?
Yes, I forgot one, -s, which is equivalent to -d, just as modifier instead of command. It's a bit of a mess in cygpath... 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/
