Re: ln and mkshortcut inconsistent in handling of .exe extension

[Matt Swift <swift at alum dot mit dot edu>]

>> "L" == Larry wrote:

    L> 'ln' and 'mkshortcut' have different behavior for a reason.  See 
    L> <http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-effectively.html#AEN1516>.
    L> The difference is why 'mkshortcut' exists.  Otherwise, we'd just have
    L> 'ln' (which is all we had for quite some time until the need for 
    L> different behavior was realized).



I had seen that discussion.  I found no discussion of the particular
interaction of shortcuts/symlinks and the special handling of the .exe
extension.  To predict the results of the commands I listed, I had to
experiment.

Second, I still don't understand why `ln' shouldn't behave the way I
suggested: how is it better the way it is than if `ln -s' never
created broken shortcuts and 'ln' (hardlink) defaulted to a target of
"foo.exe" when the supplied target "foo" doesn't exist?  


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