RE: New symlinks.

["McCunney, Dennis" <DMcCunney at roper dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:42 PM
> To: Cygwin
> Subject: Re: New symlinks.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:43:32AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:17:30PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk
> > >suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found'
> > >on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth:
> > >The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink.
> > 
> > Again, it is surprising behavior.  Such a file would not exist on UNIX.
> > I personally think that we should hide implementation details like
> > "Oh yeah, we added a .lnk extension to all of our symbolic links"
> > from the user.  There is no reason for them to know or care about
> > this detail.
> 
> Sure, but it is hidden from the normal user. If a user doesn't
> know about the implementation details how should he ever have
> the idea to explicitely type in `ls foo.lnk'? On the other hand
> the experienced user would expect a result. It's BTW the only
> chance to get the info whether it's an old or a new symlink on
> the command line without using strace. This is a sort of
> information hiding which only hits the experienced ones.

The .lnk extension _will_ show in a dir list made by a non-Cygwin utility,
like Windows Explorer, or command.com/cmd.exe, so it's impossible to fully
hide the implementation details.  If it _were_ possible to completely hide
it, it would remove the point I see to  creating the new symlinks, which is
links Windows could follow, too.

Why not treat the new symlinks like Unix "." files: the .lnk extension is
not shown in a standard directory list, but _will_ be shown by "ls -a", or
if the user provides the explicit file name to ls.

> Corinna
______
Dennis

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple