> viro wrote:
>> if (*name == '/') {
>> if (*(name+1)=='/' && *(name+2)==':') {
>> name+=3;
>
> Pathname resolution is a hell of a fundamental thing and kludges
>like that are too ugly to be acceptable. If you can't make that clean
>and have to resort to stuffing "special cases" (read: barfbag of ioctl
>magnitude) into the areas that might be unspecified by POSIX, don't do it
>at all.
>
Even though SuS allows for implementation-specific resolution for pathnames
starting with "//"? It's kludgy, and I suspected that might be the response,
but I thought I'd float it nonetheless.
>I don't like the amount of handwaving from Hans, but *that* is far
>worse. Vetoed.
Kludgy, yes, but far worse? At least I bothered to take the SuS into
consideration and took the time to try an approach, however kludgy, that
might work within them.
Bilious or not, thanks for the feedback.
david
