Added some interesting functionality to my cygwin sandbox

Corinna Vinschen
Tue Jul 1 08:15:00 GMT 2003

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 06:43:03PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.) wrote:
> Seems to me that we're trying too hard to accommodate both worlds
> in this discussion.  The real goal is to get better UNIX support.  This
> contradicts Win32isms.  If it didn't, we wouldn't need this effort.  All
> the paths in question are easily accessible via POSIX paths, so there is
> no need to try to accommodate those who would use Win32-like paths and 
> expect
> them to act as such.  The concession one must accept to use this option
> is POSIX paths.  So I say just make a clean break and let it go at that.
> Of course, there will be those who try, fail, and complain.  But part of
> this work includes the proper FAQ entries that we can all reference in
> response, right? ;-)

No DOS paths at all if cwd is below one of these mount points?
Yes, why not?  Whoever is using this mount flag had to think already
about the consequences.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                      
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list