Re: File name syntax (WAS: RE: FW: Can not config sshd)

["Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>]

At 07:49 PM 5/26/00, Chris Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 04:18:56PM -0700, Bob McGowan wrote:
> >A character string that is used to identify a file.  A pathname consists
> >of, at most, {PATH_MAX} bytes, including the terminating null byte.  It
> >has an optional beginning slash, followed by zero or more filenames
> >separated by slashes.  If the pathname refers to a directory, it may
> >also have one or more trailing slashes.  Multiple successive slashes are
> >considered to be the same as one slash.  A pathname that begins with two
> >successive slashes may be interpreted in an implementation-dependent
> >manner, although more than two leading slashes are treated as a single
> >slash.  The interpretation of the pathname is described in pathname
> >resolution .
>
>This issue has come up many times in the past.  Neither cygwin nor
>Windows NT is "non compliant" in the special handling of the double
>backslash at the start of a path.  There have been UNIX (or at least
>UNIX-like) OS's which interpret paths with a leading // specially.
>
>I normally am a big fan of fixing things in one place and I have been
>known to stand on my head, play the ukulele, and spin counter-clockwise
>in attempts to make cygwin behave more like UNIX.  I'm just not
>convinced that eliminating the use of a // is advisable.
>
>cgf



In an effort to walk the fine line between starting a round of "me too"
replies to this thread but still show support for the point being made 
without any hard statistics, I have to say I come down on Chris's side.
I think eliminating the use of UNC paths in favor of NFS style paths 
might be favorable moving forward but there will be problems with existing
scripts and so on (I have some of these too).  Also, I don't think there 
will be any real benefit if the result is more complex (and slower) path 
handling code.
   

I'm done!;-)


Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX
                                        (508) 560-1285 - cell phone



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com