From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22067 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2016 16:16:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 22052 invoked by uid 89); 23 Aug 2016 16:16:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=strikes X-HELO: limerock04.mail.cornell.edu Received: from limerock04.mail.cornell.edu (HELO limerock04.mail.cornell.edu) (128.84.13.244) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:16:12 +0000 X-CornellRouted: This message has been Routed already. Received: from authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (granite4.serverfarm.cornell.edu [10.16.197.9]) by limerock04.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4_cu) with ESMTP id u7NGGAdq005981 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:16:10 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.9] (mta-68-175-148-36.twcny.rr.com [68.175.148.36] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by authusersmtp.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.4/8.12.10) with ESMTP id u7NGG9fa028222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:16:10 -0400 To: cygwin From: Ken Brown Subject: The Cygwin User Guide on path names Message-ID: <6a728c0c-81e8-b92b-8344-476d736e2306@cornell.edu> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:25:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-PMX-Cornell-Gauge: Gauge=XXXXX X-PMX-CORNELL-AUTH-RESULTS: dkim-out=none; X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00433.txt.bz2 The section on path names in the user guide (https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#using-pathnames) strikes me as misleading when it says in the first sentence, "Cygwin supports both POSIX- and Win32-style paths." I think it would be better to say "The Cygwin DLL" and to emphasize that Cygwin applications do *not* necessarily support Win32 paths. See https://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2016-08/msg00409.html for a recent example where this has come up. It's also come up in connection with git and emacs and probably many other applications. The documentation also says, "The usage of Win32 paths, though possible, is deprecated...." I wonder if this should be strengthened to say something like, "The usage of Win32 paths, though possible, is strongly deprecated and may be removed in a future release of Cygwin." I'll be glad to prepare a documentation patch. Ken -- 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