X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	07 Sep 2003 14:07:56 +0200
Message-Id:	<u3cf8by3n.fsf@elta.co.il>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3F5AFD7A.F6BB1DA2@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:42:18 +0100)
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> <3F5AFD7A DOT F6BB1DA2 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 10:42:18 +0100
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > >
> > > /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.

That is true.

> 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/ .

Because that's the OS we run on.  DJGPP can be Posix only up to a
point where the underlying OS allows us to.  Multiple current
directories is something entirely alien to Posix, but it is essential
for good DOS/Windows support.

Now, if supporting c: goes against the goal of making Unix scripts
work, then I agree that we should sacrifice c:.

- Raw text -