Paul Eggert wrote: > I'd prefer something more like fts, where > the code itself is the same in both modules ... > Can't we slim it down to one copy?
Hmm, in terms of maintainability, borrowing an implementation from glibc doesn't cost much, since the code in glibc doesn't change often. Either way, we'd have 2 implementations: canonicalize == canonicalize-lgpl != glibc canonicalize or canonicalize != canonicalize-lgpl == glibc canonicalize We cannot easily merge this into a single implementation, because with the added canonicalize_mode_t argument and the use of file_name_concat, the gnulib canonicalize differs significantly from the one in glibc. Bruno
