Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:30:24 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id: <4634-Mon01Oct2001153023+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <1001939971.21288.22.camel@bender.falconsoft.be> (message from
	Tim Van Holder on 01 Oct 2001 14:39:30 +0200)
Subject: Re: fixpath patch (rev 3)
References: <200110010921 DOT LAA18740 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
	<1001931968 DOT 21287 DOT 12 DOT camel AT bender DOT falconsoft DOT be> 
	<1438-Mon01Oct2001134848+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <1001939971 DOT 21288 DOT 22 DOT camel AT bender DOT falconsoft DOT be>
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
Precedence: bulk

> From: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: 01 Oct 2001 14:39:30 +0200
> 
> I was thinking along the lines of a Unixy program building a Unixy path
> list using /dev/:bogus:, which would lead to '/dev/' and 'bogus' being
> used.

That could indeed happen, but I don't think it would be dangerous.  I
can't think about any reasonable use of PATH that would be dangerous.

> > As for "[bogus]", it is a valid file name, so, while extremely
> > improbable, it could exist on a user's machine.
> It's only valid under Windows though (not sure about Windows+LFN=n).

No, it's not valid under LFN=n.  However, the vast majority of DJGPP
users run on Windows and with LFN=y.

> > I thought about other characters which are invalid in file names, but
> > all of them seem to run a risk of unintended consequences.  For
> > example, `*' and `?' could expand into something, `>' or `|' could
> > cause creation of files or even change the semantics of the command,
> > etc.  We could use control characters (below the blank), though.  If
> > someone has ideas, please speak up.
> But control chars are technically valid in filenames, aren't they?

No, I think DOS and Windows disallow them.

> Such files would be incredibly rare though.  Isn't there a control char
> that displays as a frowny face?  That would seem appropriate.

^A and ^B display as faces, but they are smiling faces.