Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:14:32 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>, Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: (patch) updated protoize patch
In-Reply-To: <3885476F.51242B02@hmc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000119121342.9609e-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Nate Eldredge wrote:

> > Thanks for your comments. Since you mention that foo.c.X is not a legal
> > DOS filename, there is another one to deal with -- currently a foo.c is
> > saved as foo.c.save. I've tentatively changed that to `foo.csaved'
> > instead, which looks ugly but at least workable.
> 
> Mmm... and what do we do about foo.bar?  foo.barsaved is truncated to
> foo.bar and overwrites the original file.
> 
> foo.sav might be more reasonable.

I agree: IMHO foo.sav is better.

It would be even nicer if the code would test whether long file names
are supported, and if so, use the original .save extension appended to
the file name.  A call to pathconf (with the _PC_NAME_MAX argument) is
all you need to check for long file names: if it returns 12, long
names aren't available (if they are, it will typically return 255).