Delivered-To:	listarch-cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID:	<91A8FD196436D1118EC2006008186C961325F6@server1.axonet.com.au>
From:	Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd AT axonet DOT com DOT au>
To:	cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	RE: Mount improvements finished
Date:	Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:22:22 +1100
X-Priority:	3
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Sender:	owner-cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Christopher Faylor [SMTP:cgf AT cygnus DOT com]
> Sent:	1999 February 02, Tuesday 12:23
> To:	Geoffrey Noer; DJ Delorie
> Cc:	fujieda AT jaist DOT ac DOT jp; cygwin32-developers AT cygnus DOT com
> Subject:	Re: Mount improvements finished
> 
> I just checked in a change that causes the mounts to be
> internally sorted by decreasing length of the win32 path.
> 
> That seems to solve this particular problem.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  

Don't take offence, but that sounds like a kludge.
(I would expect debate/flame wars about sorting by absolute length of
path vs sorting by number of directories in path vs ...)

If the search order is important (and it can be), there needs to be a
way to *explicitly* set the order.
Not all users will have the same requirements.

I suggest that each mount table entry should contain an integer value
whose only purpose is to set the sort order.

The actual mechanism used to set this value largely irrelevent, but
there must some way to do it.
(eg editing a file vs tweaking the registry ...)

Andrew

- Raw text -