avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim G. Antonov) (08/29/90)
> I much prefer /../sysname/usr/bin. I think this idea first appeared in >edition 8. It prevents introducing new tokens. I've heard that's an idea from Newcastle Connection.
dougm@ico.isc.com (Doug McCallum) (09/03/90)
In article <1990Sep1.181027.20989@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dstailey@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Doug Stailey) writes: ... >POSIX says that multiple slashes collapse into one slash, so standards >are on your side too. Apollo's Domain OS is the first place that I Actually, POSIX doesn't quite say this. It says that a single slash is the root, two slashes may be interpreted in an implementation dependent manner and that three or more slashes collapse to the same as one. As much as I think it is a bad idea, the standards allow it. Doug McCallum Interactive Systems Corp. dougm@ico.isc.com
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/04/90)
>Actually, POSIX doesn't quite say this. It says that a single slash is >the root, two slashes may be interpreted in an implementation dependent manner >and that three or more slashes collapse to the same as one. Actually, POSIX doesn't quite say this, either. It says (definition of "pathname", page 32): ...Multiple successive slashes are considered the same as one slash. A pathname that begins with two successive slashes may be interpreted in an implementation-defined manner, although more than two leading slashes shall be treated as a single slash. So "foo//bar///bletch" is defined by POSIX to be equivalent to "foo/bar/bletch", but "//hostname/foo/bar/bletch" may be interpreted in some implementation-defined manner that's not the same as "/hostname/foo/bar/bletch"; however, "///hostname/foo/bar/bletch" must be interpreted as "/hostname/foo/bar/bletch".