> * Bruno Haible <oe...@pyvfc.bet> [2011-08-14 14:51:55 +0200]: > > Sam, if 'canonicalize' gets this support, would you be willing to use > 'canonicalize'
Let me reiterate that the size of canonicalize is plain absurd: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2011-05/msg00143.html>. 150+ files to implement a single function which takes ~160 lines of C code. These files includes things like hash.c and fchownat.c (why?!) as well as __BOTH__ malloc.c and xmalloc.c. > instead of 'canonicalize-lgpl' in clisp? For the record, I am _not_ using `canonicalize-lgpl'. I have been reluctant to pull this code bloat into clisp so far, but if it does provide a clear advantage of handling cygwin symlinks on pure win32 builds, I will reconsider. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.6 (Final) X 11.0.60900031 http://openvotingconsortium.org http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/ http://www.memritv.org http://memri.org http://camera.org Single tasking: Just Say No.