So is the UNC type coming back at some point? It would be fine with me to leave the '--type TYPE' syntax as an alternative to --unix, --windows, --mixed, but having the --type mixed as the only way to get a forward-slash Windows path seemed counter- intuitive to me. Also --type dos to me should mean short-name as well. So should I put together another patch to do this as well?
And BTW, is the UNIXy default OK? --- Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:17:21PM -0500, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: > >YACP (Yet Another Cygpath Patch) > > > >The major change that this make is setting the UNIXy output to be the > >default. This was already true for the -ADHPSW options. If this is a > >bad idea for some reason unknown to me, there were only 3 lines changed > >to do it. (Everything still works with --unix, of course.) > > > >Also, thinking about this new --type TYPE option, I was wondering what > >exactly the 'dos' type did. So I look at the code: > > > >- if (strcasecmp (windows_format_arg, "mixed") == 0) > >- mixed_flag = 1; > >- else if (strcasecmp (windows_format_arg, "dos") == 0) > >- /* nothing */; > >- else > >- usage (stderr, 1); > >- break; > > > >Ah! It does /* nothing */, I see. So also this patch REMOVES the > >-t, --type option and changes it to -m, --mixed instead. This is hopefully > >easier to understand. > > Actually, there was another option but it was obsolete so I removed it. > I figured that the --type option would provide the capability for other > formats for filenames in the future, like //?/ or whatever. > > cgf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
