On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Sean Kelly wrote: > On May 18, 2012, at 9:42 AM, "H. S. Teoh" <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:37:23AM -0700, Sean Kelly wrote: > > [...] > >> If you're targeting Windows then use Windows APIs, if Posix then > >> Posix. Windows does claim Posix support, but it's really pretty > >> terrible and Druntime doesn't have declarations for the Posix Windows > >> interface anyway. > > > > Does Windows conform to the Posix spec at all? I highly doubt it, esp. > > some parts that just goes against how Windows works. > > It's called SUA these days and I believe is Posix compliant. The > problem is more that the Posix spec is so loose that Posix compliance > alone doesn't mean very much. Tons of stuff is isn't implemented or is > implemented badly, and the command shell is just a train wreck.
Command shells have always been a train wreck on Windows, as far as I can remember. I haven't used Windows in any serious way for more than a decade now, so I can't speak for later versions of Windows, but I suspect things haven't changed much. This is one of those things that makes Windows (l)users wonder how we Unix people can stand using the shell all day -- their idea of shell is the DOS prompt (a veritable train wreck of train wrecks). If only they knew what a *real* shell can do. ;-) T -- All problems are easy in retrospect.