Re: [PATCH] cygpath.cc
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:29:32AM +0200, Schaible, Jörg wrote: Hi Corinna, AFAICS, the patch is ok. Fine. Just two question: - The -s and -l options are only valid with the -w option. Shouldn't either the usage reflect that or the -s and -l options imply -w automatically? It's not *that* obvious for the user that s/he has to use `cygpath -w -l ...'. I always had in mind that it would be great to implement the options once for -u, too. I see and that's a good idea, IMHO. However, for now I have applied your patch and just tweaked the usage output slightly. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
RE: [PATCH] cygpath.cc
Hi Corinna, I see and that's a good idea, IMHO. However, for now I have applied your patch and just tweaked the usage output slightly. Fine. I was unhappy with it by myself also, but was not sure how to improve it in the best way. :)
Re: [PATCH] cygpath.cc
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 09:02:00AM +0200, Schaible, Jörg wrote: Hi, as already announced here is the next patch for cygpath.cc supporting -l option to convert file names to Windows long format. Unfortunately this works not for strict mode, since functions cygwin_conv_to_win32_path and cygwin_conv_to_full_win32_path will return an error for a Windows short path/name. AFAICS, the patch is ok. Just two question: - The -s and -l options are only valid with the -w option. Shouldn't either the usage reflect that or the -s and -l options imply -w automatically? It's not *that* obvious for the user that s/he has to use `cygpath -w -l ...'. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
