On 8/26/2016 10:35 AM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote: > From: Herbert Stocker >> On 26.08.2016 15:19, Lee Dilkie wrote: >>> and break everyone who has existing code to take care of this? >> >> If it is done, it should be done as an additional option, i'd say. > > Of course a new option, duh! ☺ > But my feeble brain is failing to imagine a case where this > would break anything, unless the user solution would turn > a returned foo.exe into foo.exe.exe, which seems doubtful. >
We still don't have a valid case of failure without the .exe. Until that happens this is a no-go change. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple