On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 01:03:18PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Feb 11 20:22, Eric Blake wrote: >>I strongly oppose option 3 - cygwin should never add '.' implicitly to >>the front of a POSIX path - if you are crazy enough to want dot there, >>put it there yourself explicitly. But I like option 2, of squeezing >>';;' into a single ':' (avoiding the implicit dot of $PATH '::'), and >>ignoring trailing ';' (again, avoiding the implicit dot of $PATH >>trailing ':'). If the user wants dot in the middle or at the end, >>automagically converted from the Windows %PATH%, then they can >>explicitly use ';.;' or trailing ';.' to make their intent clear. And >>since Windows always implicitly prepends '.' to %PATH%, this might cut >>down on the traffic to this list of "how did . get on my $PATH?". >>(Although it will probably increase the traffic of "why did ;; get >>turned into : instead of ::?") > >That's unavoidable. Whatever you do, somebody will complain.
And that is precisely why I suggested asking for feedback in the mailing list. I was wondering if there might be at least a couple of people who would say "Please don't do this because I rely on this behavior". I don't mind protecting people against the evil 3PP which corrupt the PATH but, as I said, since we don't get that many complaints about the current behavior (which may actually have been in place for a decade) we don't want to necessarily penalize those smart people who have correctly deduced that Cygwin does a one-to-one translation to/from the windows path and have therefore put a ;; in their PATH expecting a translation to :: in the Cygwin path. If we don't get a single person indicating that they rely on the current behavior then I'm ok with changing it. We have a patch ready to be checked in, in fact. cgf -- 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/