Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

Greetings, Al! You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation. Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of fool-proof'ness. Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But does that address the original topic? :-) After python

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

Hello, I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as transparently as one would expect. I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with ls python2.?. It is not found. Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but we can't really say that there is a

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

On Sep 15 13:40, Al wrote: Hello, I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as transparently as one would expect. I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with ls python2.?. It is not found. Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

True.  In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development. I guess there are some other reasons to do it this way. If not one should

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote: True.  In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development. It wasn't an argument, it was just a

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

On Sep 15 15:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote: True.  In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

I'd love to drop the .exe suffix from readdir(), I'm just not sure what unwelcome side-effects we create. Yes, that's always the point. All programs would break, that are only build against the .exe suffix. Like mine after patching it. :-) Don't know if Cygwin has a testing state to fix those

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

For instance, this one:  Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe suffix as extension of a mere textfile. What would be the ideal

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

On 9/15/2010 12:23 PM, Al wrote: For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe suffix as extension of a mere

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

Greetings, Al! I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as transparently as one would expect. I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with ls python2.?. It is not found. I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case. It should be

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible from Windows API. How would this work with non-Cygwin programs?  They wouldn't be handled under (1). Depends on how you install or mount them. But yes, as a prerequest there would be two types of filessystem handling.

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case. It should be looking for python2.* instead. Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there wouldn't be .10 for now) Definitly not. It would also find python2.6-config which is not wanted. It

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

Greetings, Al! For instance, this one:  Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe suffix as extension of a mere textfile. What

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

Greetings, Al! I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case. It should be looking for python2.* instead. Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there wouldn't be .10 for now) Definitly not. It would also find python2.6-config which is

Re: .exe magic reloaded 2

You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation. Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of fool-proof'ness. Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But does that address the original topic? :-) After python 2.7 there is 3.x