On Sun, February 12, 2006 11:58 am, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Feb 12 08:44, John Morrison wrote: >> On Sat, February 11, 2006 8:41 pm, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > We're >> > just trying go figure out if removing the ;; translation will affect >> > many people. We're not looking to add things to the PATH. >> > >> > There is a tradeoff here and I don't believe that we really know what >> > the implications are. You can speculate that thousands of people are >> > affected by the ;; problem but we haven't had very many complaints >> about >> > this and certainly people who are relying on ;; are not going to be >> > sending email here since Cygwin is working as they expect. >> > >> > Also, while skipping empty elements is a trivial operation, it is not >> > without cost. Every time that we have to guard the user against >> > something like this, we add another nail to the "cygwin is slow" >> coffin. >> >> Would a reasonable solution would be to make the PATH environment >> variable >> a special case and parse it when set? (Appologies if this isn't a >> reasonable solution) > > Er... how does this match the question? %PATH% always exists and so > it has always to be parsed to create $PATH.
Humm, sorry - sleep deprived. Was thinking that it would only need to be parsed once (don't know the internals of cygwin very well) rather than the (possibily, if I read correcly, implied) multiple times. J. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
