X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:message-id:from:to:subject :content-type:date:in-reply-to:references; q=dns; s=default; b=y U/1x+KXTRssrSP0Te1sukrTYt7sFvYWIxD0g6wkvUNjTFqfwGaFq0arly/KNBLNc t4vsMv8Srz6GIYHLGs0soztP7yqvmkLJrf+A8KqfougrqyM54Xs0NLiCyUgDWdg/ 7jGqXIy2MkcvYzLN7DXgK87+6xm/bCbDPCKwXftyAo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:message-id:from:to:subject :content-type:date:in-reply-to:references; s=default; bh=X4imk08 Y8aKz6Nw8E7NDoKNBdCw=; b=MUwyT7kOUP9aZCtFzuWk0j1ooO3X1sbnPCAQRKN +a8ePo9eO4MVcecmEbDEou9Fd78fAo7NEiVDg7aOOl4yOHnuGp94xjae51ZpDcQh /MMfnnPRSA4QgFb16k5+rGAad7IKhqH1zqDtkexR/lz7yKG7s+0ix1VdV+Zk7/hU B9PM= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mout.gmx.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: From: "Sven Eden" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Aw: Re: Re: Problematic interpretion of paths starting with double slashes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:57:37 +0200 Sensitivity: Normal In-Reply-To: References: X-UI-Message-Type: mail X-IsSubscribed: yes > Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018 um 20:02 Uhr > Von: Lee > On 6/12/18, Sven Eden wrote: > > Good style is to guarantee, that > > not more than one slash is issued. > > Why don't you submit a patch to guarantee that not more than one slash > is issued? Already done. > Or submit a bug report that the earlier patch broke portability? Already done. > Asking cygwin to change their long standing, posix allowed, > implementation defined behavior seems like the least likely way to get > the problem fixed. I never did that. All I did was to ask whether such an extension would be possible. It is, so my question is answered. And btw., the implementation, if extended in the way I proposed, would still be POSIX compliant. ;-) Cheers Sven -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple