Dear Rony, Many thanks for your comments. A quick reply to your first question, I will elaborate on the rest of your mail later.
Missatge de Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> del dia dl., 27 de febr. 2023 a les 18:59: > Dear Josep Maria, > > thank you *very* much for your information which is *very* interesting! > > This has been an incredible amount of research and experiments on your > side, kudos to you and thank you very much! > > --- > > Ad Windows patch (changing the forward slash to a backward slash), > <https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1870/attachment/windows.SysFileSystem.cpp.diff> > <https://sourceforge.net/p/oorexx/bugs/1870/attachment/windows.SysFileSystem.cpp.diff> > : > > Index: SysFileSystem.cpp > =================================================================== > --- SysFileSystem.cpp (revision 12646) > +++ SysFileSystem.cpp (working copy) > @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ > while (name < endPtr) > { > // find the first directory element? > - if (*endPtr == '/') > + if (*endPtr == '\\') > { > return false; // found a directory portion before an > extension...we're extensionless > } > > Windows has been starting to accept forward slashes instead of backward > slashes slowly. So maybe the test could/should be changed to: > > Index: SysFileSystem.cpp > =================================================================== > --- SysFileSystem.cpp (revision 12646) > +++ SysFileSystem.cpp (working copy) > @@ -457,7 +457,7 @@ > while (name < endPtr) > { > // find the first directory element? > - if (*endPtr == '/') > + if (*endPtr == '\\' || *endPtr == '/') > { > return false; // found a directory portion before an > extension...we're extensionless > } > > What do you - or anyone else - think? > +1 It can't do no harm, as far as I can see. My understanding of the intrincacies of the internals is not good enough to know whether, at this very same moment (i.e., when hasDirectory is being called), the conversion "/" -> "\" (which per force *has* to take place at a certain point) has already happened. Josep Maria > --- > > Ad requires directive: the supplied program name should be called by the > Rexx instance on behalf of the program the very first time and follow > therefore the existing call semantics to not cause surprises? (If the same > program gets required by additional programs in the Rexx instance then the > program does not get called a second time, but its now known public > routines and known public classes are made immediately available to that > program.) > > Are you sure that requiring a program is not behaving like calling that > program? > > ---rony > > > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
