Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:56:29 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mark E. Levitt" <> | Subject | RE: Kernel TODO list (vfat : shortcuts vs. symbolic links) |
| |
On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Kenneth Albanowski wrote: > This, unfortunately, isn't very likely as Windows 95 "shortcuts" are > actually .PIF files. You can view them, more-or-less, as a short batch > file that runs the original when you run it. Even under Windows 95, they > don't work to well, and while it _might_, barely, be possible to treat > shortcuts as symbolic links, going the other way around probably can't > work at all.
No. Shortcuts are not .PIF files. There are PIF files for DOS programs, these are called shortcuts, but their are also files with the extension of .lnk that link to windows programs. They work pretty well under Windows. They actually work better than symbolic links do. You can rename or move the target within the same filesystem and the shortcut will refind the target. Symbolic links will break with just a rename of the file. OS/2's shadows do much the same thing and also seem more robust than symbolic links.
____________________________________________________________________
Mark E. Levitt Department of Speech Communication, Syracuse University E-mail: melevitt@syr.edu Home Page: http://web.syr.edu/~melevitt
PGP fingerprint = B8 A3 AA A6 0F 83 9A BE F2 7A 19 F9 15 79 FE A4 Public key available from http://web.syr.edu/~melevitt/pgpkey.html ____________________________________________________________________
| |