'cp' utility bug when <dest-name>.exe file exist.

[DePriest, Jason R.]

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM,  <RISINGP1@nationwide.com> wrote:
> I disagree.  This seems to me to be adopting the Microsoft policy of doing
> the user's thinking for them:  "I don't care what they want - we know
> what's best for them."  If a person wants to have "foo" and "foo.exe" in
> the same directory, that should be allowed.  A few times getting tripped
> up by the wrong thing executing will be a good life lesson for the person,
> and teach about how different operating systems work to boot.  Should I
> create "foo" as an executable, and "foo.exe" exists, then if I want to run
> "foo.exe", I should have to call it out specifically.  I can see this
> might cause some confusion should, unbeknownst to the user, "foo.exe"
> exists earlier in the path than "foo", but that would become an
> education on how to use the PATH variable.  This confusion arises
> from Cygwin's kowtowing to Microsoft's dubious idea of using extensions to
> control the handling of files.

If you took away Cygwin's .exe extension handling and just relied on
file permissions like Unix, then using Cygwin tools from a cmd.exe
prompt would become problematic.

Windows wants that .exe (or .bat or .cmd or .msi, etc) extension and
doesn't give a whip if you chmod a file's permissions +x.  Without an
extension, Windows has no idea what to do with the file.

That's fine if you never do anything with Cygwin commands outside of a
Cygwin shell, but I don't think this is a globally desirable
behaviour.

-Jason

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple