Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 25.01.2016 um 11:55 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: >> >>> Am 25.01.2016 um 10:07 schrieb David Kastrup: >>> >>>> What actual problem are you trying to address here? >>> LilyPond will consider "C:\\some\\path" an absolute path when compiled >>> under Windows, but not when compiled under Linux/Mac. So this means: it >>> works according to the current OS. >>> >>> But LilyPond will consider "/some/path" an absolute path regardless of >>> the OS. >>> >>> I think LilyPond should either *always* act corresponding to the OS >>> (so "/some/path" will be considered absolute only on *NIX) or it >>> should always return true to *all* possible ways of specifying an >>> absolute path. >> Why? I repeat: What actual problem are you trying to address here? >> >> With "actual" meaning something affecting a user in a negative and/or >> unexpected way. As far as I remember, / cannot ever be in the name part >> of a file name with either Unix or Windows. According to Microsoft: >> >> Which characters can't be used in a file name? >> >> You can't use any of the following characters in a file name: \ / ? >> : * " > < | >> >> In Unix, there are only two forbidden characters, / and NUL. But at any >> rate, there does not seem to be _any_ potential for a problem/confusion >> here. >> >> What actual problem are you trying to address here? > > that someone gets hold of a path like "C:\\some\\path" and expects > is-absolute?
What does "someone gets hold of a path" even mean? That sounds like catching a cold. > to evaluate to #t with it - which it won't do when compiled on Linux. When would that _ever_ occur? What _actual_ problem are you trying to address here? > But as you insist that strongly I start to think that this case > shouldn't really happen, as any paths any LilyPond functions might > return are either according to the OS or "slashified", i.e. Unix-like. Can you point out _any_ actual imaginable problem case? Involving computers and LilyPond rather than people "getting a hold of a path"? > So I think we can leave it at that - if a user should actually run > into this it can be easily fixed. Users don't execute is-absolute?. Programs do. If someone writes a file "C:\\some\\path.ly" on GNU/Linux because that's what the original author of some LilyPond document set the output name to for some reason, the resulting file will be stored in a relative path. If you want to access it absolutely, you'll have to prepend the respective local directory path. I don't see that letting a GNU/Linux installation pretend that it is Windows will magically lead to better results. Quite the opposite. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
