On 02/03/2011 11:34, Kagamin wrote:
Bekenn Wrote:
On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
Arggh. Always a pain to use on the command line.
No kidding. Thank goodness that's gone post-XP. Now if only they'd do
the same for
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> > I suppose, the flag on a script is checked "manually" by the shell, and on
> > a binary - by the OS.
>
> The "OS" means next to nothing in unix land. What's the OS? The kernel? The
> set
> of common utilities?
Oh, looking at execve(2), I see, shebang is processed by
On Friday 04 March 2011 02:02:45 Kagamin wrote:
> Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> > >> The only way _anything_ is executable in *nix is if its executable
> > >> flag is set. Extensions mean _nothing_ as far as executability goes.
> > >
> > > As you can see, there's an ambiguity here: script is not executed
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> >> The only way _anything_ is executable in *nix is if its executable flag is
> >> set.
> >> Extensions mean _nothing_ as far as executability goes.
> >
> > As you can see, there's an ambiguity here: script is not executed directly
> > in the same sense as machine code,
On 03/04/2011 09:56 AM, Kagamin wrote:
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
On Friday 04 March 2011 00:08:25 Kagamin wrote:
Jérôme M. Berger Wrote:
??
It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files
are executable.
On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, th
Am 04.03.2011 09:56, schrieb Kagamin:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>
>> On Friday 04 March 2011 00:08:25 Kagamin wrote:
>>> JérÎme M. Berger Wrote:
>> ??
>> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files
>> are executable.
>> On unix, the filename is just a
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> On Friday 04 March 2011 00:08:25 Kagamin wrote:
> > Jérôme M. Berger Wrote:
> > > >> ??
> > > >> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files
> > > >> are executable.
> > > >> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, th
On Friday 04 March 2011 00:08:25 Kagamin wrote:
> JérÎme M. Berger Wrote:
> > >> ??
> > >> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files
> > >> are executable.
> > >> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the
> > >> Windows extension actually m
Jérôme M. Berger Wrote:
> >
> >> ??
> >> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files are
> >> executable.
> >> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the
> >> Windows extension actually matters. They're completely different.
> >
> > What
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:10:28 +0300, Jesse Phillips
> wrote:
>
> > Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> >> Double-click? Yes. Running from console? No.
> >>
> >> Didn't believe it until I tried it myself, too.
> >
> > Hmm, I get an error from the MS Javascript interpreter.
>
> Check
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:ikohfp$8go$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Kagamin Wrote:
>
>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>
>> > > Whether that's a crap is debatable. Sometimes you would want to
>> > > backup or
>> > > manage that crap, say, game saves.
>> >
>> > I didn't say it shouldn't exist, I just s
On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:10:28 +0300, Jesse Phillips
wrote:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
>No you cannot. What happens is that you *open* them with the
> default application, which just happens to be an interpreter whose
> default action is to run the script. Try renaming a .exe into .js
> and it
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:47:54 +0300, Jérôme M. Berger
wrote:
> Kagamin wrote:
>> Don Wrote:
>>
>>> ??
>>> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files are
>>> executable.
>>> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the
>>> Windows extension actua
Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> > No you cannot. What happens is that you *open* them with the
> > default application, which just happens to be an interpreter whose
> > default action is to run the script. Try renaming a .exe into .js
> > and it will not run, whereas on Unix it would.
> >
> >
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:47:54 +0300, Jérôme M. Berger
wrote:
Kagamin wrote:
Don Wrote:
??
It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files are
executable.
On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the
Windows extension actually matters. They're
Kagamin wrote:
> Don Wrote:
>
>> ??
>> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files are
>> executable.
>> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the
>> Windows extension actually matters. They're completely different.
>
> What do you mean? Yo
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> "Kagamin" wrote in message
> news:iklanl$1qg$1...@digitalmars.com...
> > Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> >
> >> Name one case in windows where some sort of distinction between filename
> >> and
> >> extension actually makes a real tangible difference versus unix, that
> >> doe
Kagamin Wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
> > > Whether that's a crap is debatable. Sometimes you would want to backup or
> > > manage that crap, say, game saves.
> >
> > I didn't say it shouldn't exist, I just said it shouldn't be in the user's
> > documents directory.
>
> If they're in "My
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> > Whether that's a crap is debatable. Sometimes you would want to backup or
> > manage that crap, say, game saves.
>
> I didn't say it shouldn't exist, I just said it shouldn't be in the user's
> documents directory.
If they're in "My Documents/Local Settings" you can
Don Wrote:
> ??
> It ALWAYS makes a difference. For example, only .exe and .com files are
> executable.
> On unix, the filename is just a name. Nothing more. By contrast, the
> Windows extension actually matters. They're completely different.
What do you mean? You can run .js and .vbs files
On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:27:59 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:ikl9vq$b0$1...@digitalmars.com...
Bekenn Wrote:
On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
> Arggh. Always a pain to use on the comm
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:ikntvs$23rr$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> Now if only I could get programs to quit cluttering "My Documents" with
>> their misc junk, instead of "My Documents/.." where all that crap
>> belongs,
>> *that* would make me happy...
>
> Whether
"Don" wrote in message
news:iknnq3$1neu$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Don" wrote in message
>> news:ikj7n9$1sg2$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:01:49 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> People don't always realize it, b
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> Now if only I could get programs to quit cluttering "My Documents" with
> their misc junk, instead of "My Documents/.." where all that crap belongs,
> *that* would make me happy...
Whether that's a crap is debatable. Sometimes you would want to backup or
manage that cr
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Don" wrote in message
news:ikj7n9$1sg2$1...@digitalmars.com...
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:01:49 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
People don't always realize it, but Windows really is the same way. It's
really only the user-level applications like
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:iklanl$1qg$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> Name one case in windows where some sort of distinction between filename
>> and
>> extension actually makes a real tangible difference versus unix, that
>> doesn't merely amount to convention
>
> You
"Kagamin" wrote in message
news:ikl9vq$b0$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Bekenn Wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> > I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
>> > Arggh. Always a pain to use on the command line.
>>
>> No kidding. Thank goodness that's g
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> Name one case in windows where some sort of distinction between filename and
> extension actually makes a real tangible difference versus unix, that
> doesn't merely amount to convention
You can pass program path to CreateProcess without extension, .exe is assumed.
Bekenn Wrote:
> On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> > I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
> > Arggh. Always a pain to use on the command line.
>
> No kidding. Thank goodness that's gone post-XP. Now if only they'd do
> the same for Program Files...
Did b
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikl3m2$2i6s$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:45:15 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
>> news:ikiht0$2vba$2...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> I've also found a few cases like that. In general, I think
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:45:15 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
> news:ikiht0$2vba$2...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I've also found a few cases like that. In general, I think std.path
>> takes the KISS approach, probably because it's the most efficient and
>> wor
On 3/1/2011 7:32 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I didn't know that. Thanks for the link!
No problem.
Bekenn wrote:
Ah, this one (folders) I actually have a response for. Or, rather,
Raymond Chen does:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2011/02/16/10129908.aspx
I didn't know that. Thanks for the link!
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikiht0$2vba$2...@digitalmars.com...
>
> I've also found a few cases like that. In general, I think std.path
> takes the KISS approach, probably because it's the most efficient and
> works in most cases, but I'd rather it did the Right Thing (TM) that
>
On 3/1/11 5:26 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
Yeah, one wonders what's wrong with the word "Programs". And why
directories had to be renamed "folders".
Ah, this one (folders) I actually have a response for. Or, rather,
Raymond Chen does:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2011/02/16/1
Bekenn wrote:
On 3/1/11 3:40 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Or "My Documents", "My Pictures" and whatnot (or is that gone post-XP?)
Yes, those are gone. "My Documents" is just "Documents", "My Pictures"
is just "Pictures", etc. Windows 7 (sadly) still displays the "My"
prefix (Vista doesn't), bu
Bekenn wrote:
On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
Arggh. Always a pain to use on the command line.
No kidding. Thank goodness that's gone post-XP. Now if only they'd do
the same for Program Files...
Yeah, one wonde
"Bekenn" wrote in message
news:ikk0ko$a2u$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On 3/1/11 2:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
>>> No. It's a cat. :)
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>
>>>
>>> P.S. At least it is if you've seen B5...
>>
>> OMG, I completely forgot about the who
On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 14:56:20 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
> news:mailman.2104.1299019810.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> > On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 14:27:38 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> "Jesse Phillips" wrote in message
> >> news:ikj3nf$1l0v$1...@d
On 3/1/11 3:40 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Or "My Documents", "My Pictures" and whatnot (or is that gone post-XP?)
Yes, those are gone. "My Documents" is just "Documents", "My Pictures"
is just "Pictures", etc. Windows 7 (sadly) still displays the "My"
prefix (Vista doesn't), but the directory
On 3/1/11 2:56 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
No. It's a cat. :)
- Jonathan M Davis
P.S. At least it is if you've seen B5...
OMG, I completely forgot about the whole cat thing in Babylon 5 (I assume
you mean Babylon 5). It's been far too long. Actually, I st
Am 02.03.2011 00:37, schrieb Bekenn:
> On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
>> Arggh. Always a pain to use on the command line.
>
> No kidding. Thank goodness that's gone post-XP. Now if only they'd do the
> same
> for P
On 3/1/11 3:27 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I've always hated the Windows "Documents and Settings" subdirectory.
Arggh. Always a pain to use on the command line.
No kidding. Thank goodness that's gone post-XP. Now if only they'd do
the same for Program Files...
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 3/1/11 3:42 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
There's a long, seemingly-unending history of unix programs choking on
paths
with spaces in them *even* when you give them the paths properly escaped.
Not all unix apps, but enough.
make and latex are prime examples. I have
Am 01.03.2011 23:45, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
> news:ikjqaf$2e9r$2...@digitalmars.com...
>> Am 01.03.2011 22:42, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>>>
>>> There's a long, seemingly-unending history of unix programs choking on
>>> paths
>>> with spaces in them *even* whe
"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:mailman.2104.1299019810.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 14:27:38 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Jesse Phillips" wrote in message
>> news:ikj3nf$1l0v$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> > Daniel Gibson Wrote:
>> >> .bashrc doesn't ha
On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 14:27:38 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jesse Phillips" wrote in message
> news:ikj3nf$1l0v$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> > Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> >> .bashrc doesn't have an extension and is not an extionsion either.
> >> The "." at the start is Unix convention to say "this is
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:ikjqaf$2e9r$2...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 01.03.2011 22:42, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>>
>> There's a long, seemingly-unending history of unix programs choking on
>> paths
>> with spaces in them *even* when you give them the paths properly escaped.
>> Not all
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikj54r$14ci$7...@digitalmars.com...
> Since we're on the topic of std.path, does anyone have an opinion as to
> how it should handle the various string types? Currently, it only deals
> with string, i.e. immutable(char)[], but should it also be able to
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:ikj45k$mbh$3...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 01.03.2011 16:38, schrieb Kagamin:
>> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>>
>>> or just an extentionless file named ".bashrc"? (I know unix doesn't
>>> typically have a concept of file extension, it's all just part of the
>>> name
"Jesse Phillips" wrote in message
news:ikj3nf$1l0v$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Daniel Gibson Wrote:
>
>> .bashrc doesn't have an extension and is not an extionsion either.
>> The "." at the start is Unix convention to say "this is a hidden
>> file/folder", this means "ls" (the unix equivalent to "d
On 3/1/11 3:42 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
There's a long, seemingly-unending history of unix programs choking on paths
with spaces in them *even* when you give them the paths properly escaped.
Not all unix apps, but enough.
make and latex are prime examples. I have made an executive decision to
"Don" wrote in message
news:ikj7n9$1sg2$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:01:49 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> People don't always realize it, but Windows really is the same way. It's
>>> really only the user-level applications like Explorer t
Am 01.03.2011 22:42, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
> news:ikivql$mbh$1...@digitalmars.com...
>> Am 01.03.2011 14:50, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>>> news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -05
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:ikivql$mbh$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 01.03.2011 14:50, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>> news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Tue,
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:ikj0cb$mbh$2...@digitalmars.com...
> Am 01.03.2011 15:31, schrieb Lars T. Kyllingstad:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:50:29 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>>> news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 01 Mar
Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:04:53 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 06:54:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 3/1/11 4:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 01 March 2011 02:49:31 Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> >> Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> >>> According t
Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:25:57 +, retard wrote:
> .pds.gz,
Sorry about the typo, .pdf.gz
On Tuesday, March 01, 2011 06:54:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 3/1/11 4:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 March 2011 02:49:31 Daniel Gibson wrote:
> >> Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> >>> According to the docs, std.path.getName() "Returns the extensionless
> >>>
Kagamin wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
>
>> or just an extentionless file named ".bashrc"? (I know unix doesn't
>> typically have a concept of file extension, it's all just part of the name,
>> but unix programs will often care about the extension portion of a
>> filename.)
>
> .Net treats it
Adam Ruppe wrote:
> The best part is taking the file name issue and combining it with the
> shell expansion design unix has.
>
> mkdir something
> touch something/test
> touch -- -R
> touch test
> rm *
>
> Every file will be destroyed, including subdirectoriesexcept the
> murderous -R file!
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 08:15:35 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:07:15 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:04:52 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:55:57 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>> The point of this wh
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:01:49 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikis59$14ci$3...@digitalmars.com...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:10:58 +0100, Jens Mueller wrote:
I don't know whether this is useful but why not look at what is alr
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 05:35:38 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I can understan
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:07:15 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:04:52 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:55:57 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> The point of this whole discussion is how should phobos' std.path deal
>>> with filenames
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:04:52 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:55:57 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:52:43 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:27:49 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
very very smart, experienced pe
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:55:57 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:52:43 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:27:49 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>
>>> very very smart, experienced people sometimes do things without
>>> thinking. If we can d
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:39:35 -0500, Adam Ruppe
wrote:
The best part is taking the file name issue and combining it with the
shell expansion design unix has.
mkdir something
touch something/test
touch -- -R
touch test
rm *
Every file will be destroyed, including subdirectoriesexcept the
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:52:43 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:27:49 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
very very smart, experienced people sometimes do things without
thinking. If we can do something really small to prevent catastrophic
errors, I think it's worth it
Since we're on the topic of std.path, does anyone have an opinion as to
how it should handle the various string types? Currently, it only deals
with string, i.e. immutable(char)[], but should it also be able to handle
the other permutations of mutable/const/immutable and char/wchar/dchar?
-Lar
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:27:49 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:08:14 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:52:50 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:31:18 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Tue, 01 M
The best part is taking the file name issue and combining it with the
shell expansion design unix has.
mkdir something
touch something/test
touch -- -R
touch test
rm *
Every file will be destroyed, including subdirectoriesexcept the
murderous -R file!
Am 01.03.2011 16:38, schrieb Kagamin:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
or just an extentionless file named ".bashrc"? (I know unix doesn't
typically have a concept of file extension, it's all just part of the name,
but unix programs will often care about the extension portion of a
filename.)
.Net treat
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:
> or just an extentionless file named ".bashrc"? (I know unix doesn't
> typically have a concept of file extension, it's all just part of the name,
> but unix programs will often care about the extension portion of a
> filename.)
.Net treats it as a nameless file with ex
Daniel Gibson Wrote:
> .bashrc doesn't have an extension and is not an extionsion either.
> The "." at the start is Unix convention to say "this is a hidden
> file/folder", this means "ls" (the unix equivalent to "dir") doesn't
I don't like this description, it is a configuration file which jus
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:08:14 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:52:50 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:31:18 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:50:29 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in mess
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:52:50 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:31:18 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:50:29 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
>
From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:31:18 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:50:29 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename, it appears that
really, the only disallowed character in unix filename
On 3/1/11 4:54 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday 01 March 2011 02:49:31 Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
According to the docs, std.path.getName() "Returns the extensionless
version of a filename or path."
But the doc also says that if the filename doesn'
Am 01.03.2011 15:31, schrieb Lars T. Kyllingstad:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:50:29 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, St
Am 01.03.2011 14:50, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, J
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:50:29 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
> news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
On Tu
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:01:49 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikis59$14ci$3...@digitalmars.com...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:10:58 +0100, Jens Mueller wrote:
I don't know whether this is useful but why not look at what is already
there. Linux has a comma
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikis59$14ci$3...@digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:10:58 +0100, Jens Mueller wrote:
>>
>> I don't know whether this is useful but why not look at what is already
>> there. Linux has a command called basename. For removing the extension
>> it i
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vrn2pooteav7ka@steve-laptop...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
>>> wrote:
>>>
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vrn0zlu4eav7ka@steve-laptop...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:50:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
>> news:ikij1r$e1i$1...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> The "." at the start is Unix convention to say "this is a hidden
>
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:13:33 -0500, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I can understand if the path stuff
can't deal with / or \ in file names (that's probably not worth tr
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikir9v$14ci$1...@digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:48:56 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
>> news:ikiktf$2vba$3...@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> I would like to say, however, that I think 'sep' is almost
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:10:58 +0100, Jens Mueller wrote:
> Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:49:31 +0100, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>
>> > Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> >> According to the docs, std.path.getName() "Returns the extensionless
>> >> version of a file
"Steven Schveighoffer" wrote in message
news:op.vrn06uqneav7ka@steve-laptop...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>
>> I can understand if the path stuff
>> can't deal with / or \ in file names (that's probably not worth trying
>> to get to
>> work right), but it _
Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>
>> I can understand if the path stuff
>> can't deal with / or \ in file names (that's probably not worth
>> trying to get to
>> work right), but it _should_ be able to handle directories with dots
>> in the
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:02:44 -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>
>> I can understand if the path stuff
>> can't deal with / or \ in file names (that's probably not worth trying
>> to get to
>> work right), but it _should_ be able t
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:49:31 +0100, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>
> > Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
> >> According to the docs, std.path.getName() "Returns the extensionless
> >> version of a filename or path."
> >>
> >> But the doc also says that if the filen
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:48:56 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
> news:ikiktf$2vba$3...@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> I would like to say, however, that I think 'sep' is almost up there
>> with rel2abs in terms of bad naming. If you just see 'sep' in a piece
>> of
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikilpg$2vba$4...@digitalmars.com...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:49:31 +0100, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>
>> Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>>> According to the docs, std.path.getName() "Returns the extensionless
>>> version of a filename or path.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:16:36 -0500, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I can understand if the path stuff
can't deal with / or \ in file names (that's probably not worth trying
to get to
work right), but it _should_ be able to handle directories with dots in
them and
files with no extension.
/ an
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 07:50:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:ikij1r$e1i$1...@digitalmars.com...
The "." at the start is Unix convention to say "this is a hidden
file/folder", this means "ls" (the unix equivalent to "dir") doesn't
list
them (ls -a does,
"Daniel Gibson" wrote in message
news:ikij1r$e1i$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> The "." at the start is Unix convention to say "this is a hidden
> file/folder", this means "ls" (the unix equivalent to "dir") doesn't list
> them (ls -a does, though) and most file browsers only list them when you
>
"Lars T. Kyllingstad" wrote in message
news:ikiktf$2vba$3...@digitalmars.com...
>
> I would like to say, however, that I think 'sep' is almost up there with
> rel2abs in terms of bad naming. If you just see 'sep' in a piece of
> code, maybe you understand it is a separator, but I don't think eve
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:49:31 +0100, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 01.03.2011 09:58, schrieb Nick Sabalausky:
>> According to the docs, std.path.getName() "Returns the extensionless
>> version of a filename or path."
>>
>> But the doc also says that if the filename doesn't have a dot, then it
>> return
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
