This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: edit Aux.pm under GNU emacs hangs
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:07:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: edit Aux.pm under GNU emacs hangs
- References: <22909185.post@talk.nabble.com> <5E25AF06EFB9EA4A87C19BC98F5C875302FBD5C5@core-email.int.ascribe.com> <20090406161239.GA12558@trikaliotis.net> <20090406162026.GA8063@calimero.vinschen.de> <20090407100659.GB12558@trikaliotis.net>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:06:59PM +0200, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
>Hello,
>
>* On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:20:26PM +0200 Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Apr 6 18:12, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
>
>> > * On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:00:21PM +0100 Phil Betts wrote:
>> > > Marc Girod wrote:
>[...]
>> > > http://cygwin.com/faq/faq-nochunks.html#faq.using.dos-filenames
>
>> > Is this still true for Cygwin 1.7? I mean, Win 9x support has been
>> > dropped, there is no reason not to use the \\.\... path specifiers,
>> > which would make this problem vanish.
>>
>> Apart from the fact that you should use slashes instead of backslashes,
>> there isn't any need to use //./ in Cygwin 1.7. Just open Aux.pm.
>
>I was asking if 1.7 supports the access to such files. As I was assuming
>that you would use the Win32 API, I asked why *Cygwin* does not use the
>\\.\... paths.
>
>
>> http://cygwin.com/1.7/cygwin-ug-net/using-specialnames.html
>
>Ok, so this is not an issue for 1.7 anymore. Good to know.
So, to summarize:
Message 1: "I can't create Aux.pm"
Message 2: "Windows limitation"
Message 3: "What about 1.7?"
Message 4: "Fixed in 1.7"
Message 5: "You didn't answer the question"
Message 6: "Yes I did"
Message 7: minor correction to 6
Message 8: "Oh. I misinterpreted the question"
Message 9: "No problem"
Message 10: Pedantic responses/questions to nits in Message 3
Message 11: Polite response to pedantry
Message 12: "Thanks for message #3"
Seems like we were seven or eight messages over the limit.
cgf