X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3F5AFD7A.F6BB1DA2@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:42:18 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: RESEND: Re: /dev/c - c: or c:/ ?
References:	<002a01c370ca$b51801e0$2202a8c0 AT dualzastai> <3F550293 DOT 76E873F8 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <u4qzu5knp DOT fsf AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3F58FF62 DOT 5B9696B7 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <7263-Sat06Sep2003222333+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:25:54 +0100
> > From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > > >
> > > > POSIX mandates that.
> > >
> > > Well, DOS isn't a Posix system ;-)  The fact that "c:" and "c:/" are
> > > two different things is one of the frequent gotchas in ported
> > > programs.  So the Posix compatibility is already broken here, and it
> > > ain't our fault.
> >
> > /dev/c is something we've introduced. I don't see why /dev/c shouldn't be
> > POSIX-compliant, just because c: and c:/ are different things.
> 
> I thought I explained that: because the OS we are running on isn't
> Posix.
[snip]

I thought /dev/x paths were supposed to make it easier to port POSIX
programs/scripts. What is the point of /dev/x, if the programs/scripts still
have to be aware of c: vs. c:/ ? I.e.: /dev/x vs. /dev/x/ .

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -