> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we go this route, then base_name(F) cannot in general yield a
> > suffix of F even on Unix systems, since we would want dir_name("a/b/")
> > == "a/b" and base_name("a/b/") == ".". Hence base_name will need to
> > allocate memory in general, even on Unix. On Cygwin it will need it
> > to compute "./a:b".
>
> That's a big departure from established tradition.
> Do you really want to call the result base_name?
> The first few uses of base_name in the coreutils that I looked at
> do not seem amenable to the proposed change in semantics. E.g.,
>
> /* Return true if the last component of NAME is `.' or `..'
> This is so we don't try to recurse on `././././. ...' */
> static bool
> basename_is_dot_or_dotdot (const char *name)
> {
> char const *base = base_name (name);
> return DOT_OR_DOTDOT (base);
> }
I think this argues for two functions - one which malloc's, and
one which returns a pointer within the string of the last
component. I would like to see base_name() malloc (so that
it is symmetrical with dir_name), and add a new function
last_component() that does what base_name() currently
provides. Then usages like basename_is_dot_or_dotdot
would switch to use last_component(), whereas usages like
basename(1) would add in the appropriate free() after
using base_name().
Also, I already audited gnulib, coreutils, tar, and findutils
for all usages of base_name, so I am prepared to provide
this segregation into base_name() vs. last_component()
as part of my patch.
>
> > Also, src/dirname.c and src/basename.c will have to be modified to
> > strip redundant trailing slashes before invoking dir_name and
> > base_name.
>
> Examples like the above (from remove.c) would also require removing
> trailing slashes. So we'd have to make a writable copy and remove
> trailing slashes in order to be able to use the new base_name function,
> which would return a malloc'd result. And we'd have to free it, too,
> of course.
strip_trailing_slashes already exists, and already assumes that
its input is writable. So
"char *foo = strip_trailing_slashes (base_name (bar));"
is a nice replacement for the current
"char *foo = strip_trailing_slashes (strdup (base_name (bar)));"
--
Eric Blake
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
