On Jun 2, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 06/02/2015 10:37 AM, Rich Eizenhoefer wrote: >> Can you provide more detail on changing isatty function to support Cygwin >> PTY's? I need to be able to support the request in our backlog. > > As long as we are wishing, it would be awesome if Windows natively > supported ptys as actual objects, instead of making cygwin have to > emulate them on top of other objects.
In my ignorance of how ptys map to Windows console objects, I held off from asking for this when Mr. Eizenhoefer solicited ideas, but this is what I thought of at that time, too. In other words, this notion of “virtual terminals” is already implemented multiple times, following a standard that specifies the expected semantics — POSIX — so why not just do that? Why, in the end, can Windows *not* have ptys? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
