Message-ID: <39A63EFE.8FE71567@softhome.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:40:14 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Update __solve_dir_symlinks() patch
References: <39A577FD DOT 834F90D1 AT softhome DOT net> <3405-Fri25Aug2000105230+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Looks okay (inspection only), but I wonder whether the recursive
> invocation of basename is such a good idea.  

Recursive? I failed to find any recursion there. basename() can be called
max 2 times.

> Imagine an argument such
> as "c:/foo///////////////////////////////////////////////////////".

What would be sane response to this arg? My current code after some,
uhm, resolving would return the same c:/foo/////.../ with one slash less.

In general, is it OK to follow GIGO principle for insane paths? (provided,
that 'garbage-in' part does not cause any crashes, infinite loops etc.)

> Also, what about file names such as /dev/env/FOO or /dev/c/foo?  Does
> this code DTRT for them?  

Can't imagine why.

> It looks like it depends what does
> __solve_symlinks does for these names.

Yes, except for short ones: /dev/c/ would call __solve_symlinks() for 'dev',
and append 'c'.

> I suggest to add the "/dev/..." names to the test suite.

Will do.