On Monday 17 April 2006 17:41, Robert Nelson wrote:
> How very strange, I originally had FNM_PATHNAME in the email and then did a
> grep to see which of the two names were used in the source. However
> sometime between doing the grep and editting the email I swapped the two in
> my head. The sour
How very strange, I originally had FNM_PATHNAME in the email and then did a
grep to see which of the two names were used in the source. However
sometime between doing the grep and editting the email I swapped the two in
my head. The source refers to FNM_PATHNAME not FNM_FILE_NAME. But it is
kind
On Monday 17 April 2006 16:12, Robert Nelson wrote:
> It seems from this discussion the manual needs changing anyways.
>
> FNM_FILE_NAME is GNU specific, posix uses FNM_PATHNAME, behaviour is the
> same. I just used FNM_FILE_NAME because that is what you already use in
> some places in the source.
It seems from this discussion the manual needs changing anyways.
FNM_FILE_NAME is GNU specific, posix uses FNM_PATHNAME, behaviour is the
same. I just used FNM_FILE_NAME because that is what you already use in
some places in the source. So I don't believe there is any portability
issue, particul
