Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:02:43 +1100
From: Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject: Re: Support for "//d/foo" pathnames
In-reply-to: <199709162346.TAA29192@delorie.com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <199709170007.MAA17337@teleng1.tait.co.nz gatekeeper.tait.co.nz>
Organization: Tait Electronics Limited
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970916160141 DOT 25597Q-100000 AT is>
 (message from Eli	Zaretskii on Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:07:44 +0300 (IDT))
Comments: Authenticated sender is <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Precedence: bulk

On 16 Sep 97 at 19:46, DJ Delorie wrote:
> How about /d./foo instead?  If you have an actual directory "d",
> that's /d/foo, but drive d is /d./foo

It's possible that might cause problems: in dos, `/d./foo' is a valid 
alternative for `/d/foo'. Admittedly, we're talking about unix shell 
scripts, where `.'s are more significant than in dos, but there is 
still the potential for subtle bugs.


Bill
--
Leave others their otherness.