PATHEXT is fundamental to Windows and Should be recognised by CYGWIN
Fri Aug 5 23:45:00 GMT 2016
On 05/08/2016 21:43, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 8/5/2016 11:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 5 11:20, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>>> Hello cygsimple,
>>> Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
>>> I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
>>> Thanks for your recognition of PATHEXT's potential value;
>>> reassuring to know I am not alone in my delusions.
>>> Regarding providing code, I am somewhat stale (though I spent my first 20 work years
>>> immersed in system code, assembly/C/Algol/Pascal/C++, building firmware for bit-sliced processors, etc.)
>>> The patch to which I referred is one I found while researching the topic;
>>> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-09/msg00127.html is one reference to it.
>>> It is old and likely out of date.
>> That. Plus, the refusal from cgf is still valid today. If you see the
>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
>> PATHEXT support anymore.
> I've seen that code and I still think it would be worthwhile to support
I have the impression you are really underestimating the
negative consequence to add additional burden on the current code.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin