From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: /dev/c - c: or c:/ ?
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 08:02:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 11.0.4920
In-Reply-To: <3405-Mon01Sep2003081210+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3718.0
Thread-Index: AcNwSu6it0j35iUbQXue4NZqOt6ttwAAt/Ww
Message-Id: <20030901060253.43FAE90551@iceage.anubex.com>
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

> What other way is there to express "c:" with the /dev/x notation?

Should there be one?  The /dev/xxx notation is there for POSIX
support, and POSIX has no notion of a "current directory on drive X".
It seems odd that a specific form of an absolute POSIX path should
in reality be relative/variable.
Granted, in practice there's not a lot you can do with "/dev/c" by
itself, so I'm not sure there's a real _problem_ as such.  Then
again, does this mean that 'cd /dev/c' ends you in
'/dev/c/Documents And Settings/Foo/Desktop'?  If so, that's one
(good) reason for making /dev/c map to c:/.
After all, unlike Cygwin (as far as I know), we still allow DOS-style
paths, so users can still use c: if they need it.