2009/3/11 Clancy <clanc...@cybec.com.au>

> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:12:57 +0000, stut...@gmail.com (Stuart) wrote:
> >Please keep the discussion on-list.
> >
> >2009/3/10 Clancy <clanc...@cybec.com.au>
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> After I posted my message to the group today I realised that my program
> >> achieves its
> >> almost infinite flexibility by loading different include files in
> different
> >> circumstances,
> >> and from many different parts of the program.  The program always
> specifies
> >> the location
> >> of the include file by the relative path from the root directory.   If
> the
> >> uncertainty
> >> about the current working directory you worry about were really a
> problem
> >> this would never
> >> work, but I have been doing this for well over a year, and had never had
> >> any problems.
> >>
> >
> >Just because you haven't experienced a problem with the way you do things
> >yet it certainly doesn't mean the problem isn't there. You're not
> specifying
> >the location of an include file relative to the home directory, it's
> >relative to the current working directory which is not necessarily the
> >directory you expect it to be.
> The only circumstances in which my assumption could fail would be if I
> changed to a new
> provider with a different operating system. In the unlikely event of this
> happening all I
> would need to do would be to determine the actual directory, and chdir to
> the desired one.
> This would require at most half a dozen lines of code at the start of the
> program, so it
> would not be a significant hassle.

Like I said it's up to you what you decide to care about. One of the many
things I choose to care about is writing portable code, an important aspect
of which is not relying on absolute file locations or server configuration
as far as possible.



Reply via email to