The problem is that shortcuts are nothing like symbolic links.  They are
ordinary files interpreted by the explorer as something special based on
the LNK extension.  All other applications will just see them as files - so
it could fairly easily lead to confusion. 

- Peter -





At 09:27 AM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:41:09PM -0500, Peter J. Braam wrote:
>> Marc,
>> 
>> We need to develop some ideas of what to do with symbolic links on
>> Windows. I'm particularly worried about the ones representing conflicts
>> and dangling mount points.
>> 
>> One possibility is to use directories with mode 0000 instead. But the
>> target of the symbolic link does contain useful information.
>> 
>
>I've been "lurking" on this list instead of contributing to it up til
>now, but why can't you represent symbolic links by Windows "shortcut" files?
>
>It's been my understanding that Windows "shortcuts" are analogous to 
>Unix symlinks.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
><robert.vincent_at_norfolk.cfcmi.org>