Hi Cliff,
yes, and the other way around, since I never saw an *ix
where *.lnk has a special meaning, somebody may be
surprised now about inability to have a symlink foo -> bar
and a plain file foo.lnk in the same directory, which was
possible in earlier cygwin releases:
b20$ ln -s bar foo
b20$ >foo.lnk
b20$ ls -l
total 1
lrw-r--r-- 1 0 everyone 14 Feb 27 23:25 foo -> bar
-rw-r--r-- 1 0 everyone 0 Feb 27 23:25 foo.lnk
Bye, Heribert ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Hones [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 19:41
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: New symlinks.
>
>
[Heribert] [snip]
> But Cygwin can never succeed in performing this kind of file mapping
> perfectly; there are already difficulties with mixed-case (no-one
> expects "touch foo; touch FOO; ls" to be Unix-consistent), and with
> the treatment of .exe files which unfortunately breaks many makefiles.
>
> So maybe we are worrying too much about hiding the implementation.
>
> Just a thought - if a Windows directory contains both foo (a plain file)
> and a foo.lnk shortcut, which should Cygwin open, stat etc. see?
>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
