Am 2013-09-07 21:46, schrieb Bart:
> On 9/7/13, Jürgen Hestermann <juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Of course! Why the hell should there be double pathdelims? And why
>> (silently) accept them as if they were one?
> There should not be, but (history: DOS and) WinApi accept them, so the
> are NOT illegal in normal filenames.
In my many decades of MS experience I never have seen double path delimiters
anywhere. How do you generate them? I would not know how to do it. And I doubt
that all WinAPI function except such (and silently drop one delimiter in the
background).
>> Illegal characters should be taken just like that: Illegal characters. Why
>> should they be accepted/converted? Who adds illegal characters and expects
>> them to be silently converted to something legal? Just the opposite.
> They ('/','.') are only illegal in the '\\?\ scheme, they are
> perfectly legal (but are converted by WinApi) in "normal" filenames.
That's not true. An extract from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247.aspx says:
Use any character in the current code page for a name, including Unicode
characters and characters in the extended character set (128–255), except for
the following:
.....
The following reserved characters:
< (less than)
> (greater than)
: (colon)
" (double quote)
/ (forward slash)
\ (backslash)
| (vertical bar or pipe)
? (question mark)
* (asterisk)
.....
Regarding relative paths: It would be easy to make an exception if the path
starts with dots followed by a backslash (on Windows) in which case no '\\?\'
prefix would be added. Still for full paths it *should* be added (if it does
not yet exist). This way a path would be usable with and without the prefix
even if it is longer than MAXPATH.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
