On May 21 18:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On May 21 11:55, Lev Bishop wrote: > > On 5/21/07, Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >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.
Done. The rules have changed slightly, but should be consistent now. The option handling when reading from files (-o -f ...) is now identical to the option handling from the the command line, except that the -o and -f options are invalid when reading from a file. Please give cygpath.exe from the next developer's snapshot a try. I'd be curious what bugs I introduced. 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/
