At 02:43 PM 6/28/2002, =?UTF-8?B?QnJhbmtvIMSMaWJlag==?= wrote:
Since we're talking about semantics, breakage, etc, I'll take the
opportunity to bore everybody with an issue I'd like resolved, too;
Namely, the semantics of the APR_STATUS_IS_* macros.
I've said several times before that APR_STATUS_IS_ENOENT and
APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTDIR don't have the same meaning on Windows and Unix.
That's because Windows doesn't have an error code that would mean exactly
the same as the Posix ENOTDIR. Simulating it would be a huge cost, though.
Here's an example of the differing behaviour: If "foo" does not exist,
doint an apr_stat("foo/bar") will trigger APR_STATUS_IS_ENOENT on Unix,
but APR_STATUS_IS_ENOTDIR on Windows. That makes it very hard to write a
porable "mkdir -p" implementation; and, indeed, apr_dir_make_recursive
can't work correctly on Windows because of that.
What I'd like to propose is that we document that, for any given status
code, _more_ than one APR_STATUS_IS* macro can match, and it's the
programmer's responsibility to decide in what order to make the tests.
Brane, thank you for a terrific explanation of the issue. +1 here.
Bill
