Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semanticpath analysis

2003-01-10 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Original Message: - >From: Shankar Unni [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:30:23 -0800 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. >Semanticpath analysis > > >linda w (cyg) wrote: > >&

Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semanticpath analysis

2003-01-10 Thread Shankar Unni
linda w (cyg) wrote: What were the _original_ design goals of Cygwin -- i.e. as sponsored by "RedHat"? Cygwin predates RedHat. See http://cygwin.com/history.html (the earliest date in the file is Dec 1995). RedHat bought Cygnus Solutions (which was a shop for commercial support for GNU soft

Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semanticpath analysis

2003-01-05 Thread Hack Kampbjorn
LA Walsh wrote: Cygwin, and possibly, the Win32 module, are inconsistent in handling the differences between i:/foobar/ and i:. On one hand i: is considered a 'volume' but on the other hand i:/ seems to evaluate to the same, incorrect, value. In "Win32", each 'fs' of form ":', x of class <[:alpha

Re: Repost, different list...File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semanticpath analysis

2003-01-05 Thread Jos I. Boumans
Gurusamy Sarathy wrote: I agree with most of your points, and in particular with the one above. I consider File::Spec::Win32 currently broken because it hijacks all paths and turns them into the backslashed variety, which is completely wrong from the portability POV. (By which I mean that utiliti