> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:03:45 +0100 > From: Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected] > > > OK... does this mean "yes, I think this patch is useful and should be > > applied"? > > Yes, it does. Or else we should also remove the other HAVE_DOS_PATHS > in the same function so as to ban backslashes from %-patterns.
The other HAVE_DOS_PATHS fragment handles backslashes in _filenames_, while this one handles backslashes in _patterns_. So they are not equivalent, and their omission for patterns is on purpose (Paul stated the reasons). _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
