Hi,
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 07:49:15PM -0400, Jan Vicherek wrote:
> >On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>Would it be useful? Since this is the first time that I can recall
> >>that anyone has asked for this, I think it would be only marginally
> >>useful.
> >
> >Please see my post as of cca 2hrs ago in this same thread.
>
> You seem to be asking for accomodations in Cygwin to handler programs
> that are not built with Cygwin. That really isn't the goal of Cygwin.
Not to handle them, but to pass to them paths in the form that they
understand. And since there are only two or three forms, it shouldn't be a
mess to provide such functionality, would it ? I would think it reasonable
to be able to say "My Cygwin environment allows me to seamlessly pass path
info around : I don't have to change a line of code of the binaries that
run on the machine, to tell them which format should they expect / pass
on in ENVVARs and on the cmd line. Sometimes I don't even have the source
code to these binaries."
Would somebody think that this is a bad idea ? I fail to see why, so
please correct me if I'm wrong. Am I taking this down all the wrong paths?
(no pun intended ;-)
> However, as I said, provide a patch. I'll evalutate it.
>
> FWIW, I will *not* accept a patch which "automatically" translates
> command line arguments. I think that is a remarkably bad idea.
how about a patch which translates command line arguments if certain
conditions are met ? (Such as when a special ENVVAR is set, or somesuch)
Thanks,
Jan
> cgf
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
--
-- Gospel of Jesus is the saving power of God for all who believe --
## To some, nothing is impossible. ##
http://Honza.Vicherek.com/
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
