Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: "linda w \(cyg\)" <cygwin@tlinx.org>
To: "'Gurusamy Sarathy'" <gsar@ActiveState.com>,
   "'Jos I. Boumans'" <kane@dwim.org>
Cc: <perl5-porters@perl.org>, <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: RE: Repost, different list...File::Spec, Cygwin, Syntactic vs. Semantic path analysis 
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 23:55:09 -0800
Message-ID: <000a01c2b558$ef6a3620$1403a8c0@sc.tlinx.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200301052041.h05Kfjp04450@smtp3.ActiveState.com>
Importance: Normal

> >So I think a fix could to change F::S::Win32 to convert all win32
> >pathseperators to unix pathseperators, and hand it off to F::S::Unix
> >to do the actual catfile(), etc calls...
> 
> Sounds fine, as long as we still do the right thing when 
> handed paths with backslashes in them (i.e. result should 
> have backslashes too). I'm not much worried about how the 
> internal implementation is done (at least for now :) as long 
> as the interface and semantic guarantees are correct.
> 
> So yes, I think we're generally in agreement here.
===
	um...maybe...I don't mind normalizing converting all A to B, but
it could easily be *wrong*.

	I can have "\" in a unix pathname, and i can have "/" exported in
an arbitary sharename that *isn't* a directory separator.  Yes -- they are both
edge cases, but trying to come up with a rule that doesn't consider what will
happen in the 'edge' cases is like not programming to check for buffer
overruns.  Hopefully we can think farther ahead...

-l


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/