Raymond Toy (RT/EUS) writes: > WP> The patch does two things: > WP> - it parses "..." into a name=".." and type="" as it already did for > WP> namestrings like "foo." > WP> - it accepts (make-pathname :name ".." :type "") as consequence of > #1 > > Shouldn't namestring (unparse-unix-file?) be changed to accept name > "..." and type nil? This makes more sense to me since "abc" is > parsed as name "abc" and type nil. But I guess name ".." and type > "" is acceptable too.
So you mean to change the interpretation of "foo."? > I also now see there are a whole bunch of issues, like how should > "..a" be parsed? Is it name = "..a", type = nil, or name = ".", type > "a", or something else? My head hurts. I suppose anything goes as long as you are consistent. After all the concept of file type in the pathname is alien to the Unix filesystem. Though, I can immagine, different behaviours from different Lisp implementations may cause portability issues. > WP> that Unix allows things like "cat .", maybe SBCL's approach is the > > On Solaris, Mac OS X, and Linux: > > $ /bin/cat . > cat: input error on .: Is a directory Are you working on a NFS filesystem? That's not the behaviour of a Posix open(). -- walter pelissero http://www.pelissero.de
