New symlinks.

Corinna Vinschen cygwin@cygwin.com
Tue Feb 27 09:41:00 GMT 2001


On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:43:32AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:17:30PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >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.

Sure, but it is hidden from the normal user. If a user doesn't
know about the implementation details how should he ever have
the idea to explicitely type in `ls foo.lnk'? On the other hand
the experienced user would expect a result. It's BTW the only
chance to get the info whether it's an old or a new symlink on
the command line without using strace. This is a sort of
information hiding which only hits the experienced ones.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

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



More information about the Cygwin mailing list