New symlinks.

[Lothan]

> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:44 AM
> To: Cygwin
> Subject: Re: New symlinks.
>
>
> >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.

Perhaps this is true, but it does lead to a much nicer surprise. Let's say I
have a link called ~/foo and some package (or me for that matter) wants to
create a file called foo.lnk? It's a surprise to say that foo.lnk already
exists since all I see is foo. It's a totally different surprise if foo
suddenly gets overwritten by foo.lnk.


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