This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: cygwin poll
- To: <cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Subject: RE: cygwin poll
- From: "Andre Oliveira da Costa" <costa at cade dot com dot br>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:28:09 -0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Christopher
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 4:46 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: cygwin poll
> As DJ mentioned in his original mail the method that he proposed WON'T
> WORK WITH NORMAL WINDOWS TOOLS. If someone doesn't consider Windows
> Explorer to be a normal Windows tool, then I am mystified as to what
> they think would fall into this category.
> Since there is so much inexplicable confusion regarding this issue, I
> guess we have to consider any votes issued null-and-void. It's obvious
> that many people had no idea what they were voting for.
I might be wrong, but I think (most) people do consider Windows Explorer to
be a normal Windows tool. My doubts about all this are related to the
meaning of "won't work". If this only means that I won't be able to
manipulate (delete, rename etc.) these special files from, let's say,
Windows Explorer, I wouldn't see it as a problem, since they would only have
a meaning in the "cygwin world" (bash prompt and cygwin-compliant
applications). But, if this means that Windows Explorer would hang just by
trying to open a directory with a special file, than I think it would be a
real pain having to kill Windows Explorer from time to time, and would vote
for the non-default option.
As a side note: many emails on this thread have been wrongly credited to me
(with "Andre Oliveira da Costa wrote").
André Oliveira da Costa
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com