A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1603 ====================================================================== Reported By: calestyo Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: Issue 8 drafts Issue ID: 1603 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Enhancement Request Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: New Name: Christoph Anton Mitterer Organization: User Reference: Section: 4.14 Pathname Resolution Page Number: 94 Line Number: 2850 ff Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2022-08-30 23:34 UTC Last Modified: 2022-09-01 13:20 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: minor error in the pathname resolution ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0005953) calestyo (reporter) - 2022-09-01 13:20 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1603#c5953 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm I guess it's clear for anyone who knows how it works, but maybe not so 100% in the definite sense. Take my original message about: "A pathname that contains at least one non-<slash> character and that ends with one or more trailing <slash> characters shall not be resolved successfully unless the last pathname component before the trailing <slash> characters names an existing directory or a directory entry that is to be created for a directory immediately after the pathname is resolved." That says basically: "if the last component before the trailing / is not a directory, then don't succeed" Now it's ambiguous at that point whether "names and existing directory" includes such referenced via a symlink or not. Sure, lines 2857 through 2877 explain what happens with symlinks, but they come only *after* the above paragraph. So - other than by knowing how it works - how could one tell that the symlink-rules still apply, and that resolution didn't already fail&stop because of the above? As for your proposed changes: It's IMO not really defined what "specified" means here. What would think about using a phrase like "in the directory named respectively referenced by a"? That kinda would indicate a bit more that there's two kinds here. Or perhaps the "resolves (with...) [to]" that you used in the other change? Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2022-08-30 23:34 calestyo New Issue 2022-08-30 23:34 calestyo Name => Christoph Anton Mitterer 2022-08-30 23:34 calestyo Section => 4.14 Pathname Resolution 2022-08-30 23:34 calestyo Page Number => 94 2022-08-30 23:34 calestyo Line Number => 2850 ff 2022-08-30 23:50 calestyo Note Added: 0005950 2022-08-30 23:51 calestyo Note Edited: 0005950 2022-08-30 23:51 calestyo Note Added: 0005951 2022-09-01 08:23 geoffclare Note Added: 0005952 2022-09-01 13:20 calestyo Note Added: 0005953 ======================================================================
