> 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