Greetings, Al!
>> You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation.
>> Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of
>> fool-proof'ness.
>>
> Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But
> does that address the original topic? :-)
> Aft
>
> You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation.
> Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of
> fool-proof'ness.
>
Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But
does that address the original topic? :-)
After python 2.7 there is 3
Greetings, Al!
>> I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case.
>> It should be looking for python2.* instead.
>> Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there
>> wouldn't be .10 for now)
> Definitly not. It would also find "python2.6-config" w
Greetings, Al!
>> For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from
>> a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether
>> it's executable or not.
> Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe
> suffix as extension of a mere textfile.
> I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case.
> It should be looking for python2.* instead.
> Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there
> wouldn't be .10 for now)
Definitly not. It would also find "python2.6-config" which is not
wanted. It
>> 1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible
>> from Windows API.
> How would this work with non-Cygwin programs? They wouldn't be handled
> under
> (1).
Depends on how you install or mount them.
But yes, as a prerequest there would be two types of filessystem
handli
Greetings, Al!
> I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as
> transparently as one would expect.
> I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with "ls
> python2.?". It is not found.
I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case.
It should b
On 9/15/2010 12:23 PM, Al wrote:
For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from
a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether
it's executable or not.
Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe
suffix as extension of a mere te
>
> For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from
> a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether
> it's executable or not.
Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe
suffix as extension of a mere textfile.
What would be the id
> I'd love to drop the .exe suffix from readdir(), I'm just not sure what
> unwelcome side-effects we create.
>
Yes, that's always the point. All programs would break, that are only
build against the .exe suffix. Like mine after patching it. :-)
Don't know if Cygwin has a testing state to fix tho
On Sep 15 15:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote:
> > >
> > > True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from
> > > directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong ar
On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote:
> >
> > True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from
> > directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin.
> >
> >
>
> That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development.
It wasn't an argument, it was jus
>
> True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from
> directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin.
>
>
That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development.
I guess there are some other reasons to do it this way. If not one
should
On Sep 15 13:40, Al wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as
> transparently as one would expect.
>
> I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with "ls
> python2.?". It is not found.
>
> Here the script needs a modification to work with C
Hello,
I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as
transparently as one would expect.
I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with "ls
python2.?". It is not found.
Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but we can't
really say that there is
15 matches
Mail list logo
