This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 'cp' utility bug when <dest-name>.exe file exist.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, <RISINGP1@nationwide.com> wrote:
> I disagree. ?This seems to me to be adopting the Microsoft policy of doing
> the user's thinking for them: ?"I don't care what they want - we know
> what's best for them." ?If a person wants to have "foo" and "foo.exe" in
> the same directory, that should be allowed. ?A few times getting tripped
> up by the wrong thing executing will be a good life lesson for the person,
> and teach about how different operating systems work to boot. ?Should I
> create "foo" as an executable, and "foo.exe" exists, then if I want to run
> "foo.exe", I should have to call it out specifically. ?I can see this
> might cause some confusion should, unbeknownst to the user, "foo.exe"
> exists earlier in the path than "foo", but that would become an
> education on how to use the PATH variable. ?This confusion arises
> from Cygwin's kowtowing to Microsoft's dubious idea of using extensions to
> control the handling of files.
If you took away Cygwin's .exe extension handling and just relied on
file permissions like Unix, then using Cygwin tools from a cmd.exe
prompt would become problematic.
Windows wants that .exe (or .bat or .cmd or .msi, etc) extension and
doesn't give a whip if you chmod a file's permissions +x. Without an
extension, Windows has no idea what to do with the file.
That's fine if you never do anything with Cygwin commands outside of a
Cygwin shell, but I don't think this is a globally desirable
behaviour.
-Jason
--
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