On Saturday, 12 August 2017 at 03:58:30 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
On Saturday, 12 August 2017 at 03:52:25 UTC, Mr. Pib wrote:
You are making assumptions about me making assumptions...
please don't make any more assumptions or we will be in an
infinite regression ;/
Sorry, maybe I don't understand the question. Maybe you could
explain in broader terms the higher-level goal or problem
you're trying to solve, and maybe we can recommend a better way?
If are aware, it has nothing to do with absolute paths as the
bug should also be exhibited with relative paths. It is a
comparison issue of the strings rather than checking to see if
they represent the same physical location.
It would be like saying that \x\y is different from \x\..\x\y.
Dmd does a blind comparison, I bet, rather than what it should
be doing. Obviously \x\y are different strings but they are
not different file locations.
Fairly sure we forbid .. out of security considerations.
I don't think this applies to Windows, but on POSIX, depending
on how .. is interpreted, \x\y x/y actually can mean a
different file from x/../x/y.
It has taken a lot of consideration and research until we even
allowed path separators in import paths. For a very long time,
they were completely forbidden, and a long time after that,
they were forbidden on Windows (because on Windows things can
be more complicated due to the various kinds of reparse points
and things such as short filenames).
If that is not the case, then a better error message should be
Feel free to file a diagnostic enhancement request if you have
I'm pretty sure that on no OS does the same location mean
I am not talking about strange stuff but simple stuff.
I have code that loads a file at runtime and requires the
absolute path. This is only for debugging purposes. When built in
release, everything is switched over to use imports and embed the
files in the binary. The same path is used for other things like
caching/uniqueID but are never actually read from. You see this
sort of stuff a lot when you open an executable and see hard
coded paths but obviously never used for file system purposes.
The files and paths are all the same but import doens't seem to
think so. Adding baseName solves the problem immediately but that
is a hack. import should know that the path is the same as the
one specified by -J. The whole point of -J is to specify the path
for security purposes, right? So why does it matter if I use
path\filename or baseName(filename)? Both point to the same
location and both are consistent with -J, import should
understand that. It is an obvious oversight. But there is an
obvious programmatic difference between the two versions.
Luckily, using baseName does fix the problem so it is not a huge
deal but it is still a bug/issue with import for being ignorant
of what it is actually doing.