On May 21 11:55, Lev Bishop wrote: > On 5/21/07, Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? > > What about -s?
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-05/msg00525.html > As i hinted in my previous message, the flags handling in cygpath is > inconsistent. > [...] Right, I noticed most of your observations when looking into the source code. I'm going to rewrite the option handling to be consistent. Sorta. Most of the time at least. Stay tuned. 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/
