On 7/8/05, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I never fully understood the symlinks vs .. cannonpath argument so I'll
hope someone else jumps in and makes it.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:07:22PM +0200, demerphq wrote:
should be testing here, but i beleive the problem you are thinking of
is due to symlinks to a directory? If so then the win32 equivelent
would be a junction I think and in that case yes, foo\..\bar == bar.
I have the creeping feeling that there's an argument to be made here, butshould be testing here, but i beleive the problem you are thinking of
is due to symlinks to a directory? If so then the win32 equivelent
would be a junction I think and in that case yes, foo\..\bar == bar.
I never fully understood the symlinks vs .. cannonpath argument so I'll
hope someone else jumps in and makes it.
best stab at an answer as it seems to pertain to Win32. I think John
Peacock also said something to this effect.
To be honest i would really like to see the expected behaviour of
canonpath when called on a relative path explicitly defined. IMO
canonpath should act more like rel2abs, insofar as it should support
an optional $base argument to use instead of CWD when trying to clean
up a relative path.
canonpath() should never be inserting the CWD when cleaning up. "./bar" iscanonpath when called on a relative path explicitly defined. IMO
canonpath should act more like rel2abs, insofar as it should support
an optional $base argument to use instead of CWD when trying to clean
up a relative path.
the same as "bar" but "$CWD/bar" is not! Its important that cannonical
relative paths remain relative.
relative path properly without knowing where it is relative to.
Consider the following path:
..\..\foo
If we are in \bar then ..\..\foo is the same as ..\foo and \foo but
if we are in \bar\baz\bat then its not the same as either as it maps
to \bar\foo.
yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
