Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Thu Jun 20 19:47:00 GMT 2002

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:57:07PM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>So is the UNC type coming back at some point? 

No.  I meant the alternate way of specifying a file in Windows:



>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?

Actually, I think that specifying the output via --type makes things a
little more structured.  We can't go back now, though, because users
would complain.  It looks like I should have added a '--type unix' if
I was going to be consistent, though.

I dunno.  I don't feel really strongly about this, though.  If no one
agrees then I don't mind changing it.

>And BTW, is the UNIXy default OK?

IMO, yes.  I'd like more opinions, though.


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list