New symlinks.

[Andrej Borsenkow]

> >I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk
> >suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found'
> >on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth:
> >The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink.
>
> Again, it is surprising behavior.  Such a file would not exist on UNIX.
> I personally think that we should hide implementation details like
> "Oh yeah, we added a .lnk extension to all of our symbolic links"
> from the user.  There is no reason for them to know or care about
> this detail.
>

Hmm ... how should ``ls -L'' and lstat() behave then? Should they show just
``foo'' or ``foo.lnk''? (No, I do not know the answer)

-andrej


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple