Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-26 Thread Bastien ROUCARIES
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/23/2011 11:31 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >> First of all, newer windows do have symlinks. > > Does mingw support them natively?  If not, then we should get that fixed in > mingw; perhaps by starting with an lstat() that actually works on

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
On 24.08.2011 00:17, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > >>> hash.c in order to properly detect ELOOP, which must be done as part >>> of an unlimited-depth link following algorithm. (If we didn't have >>> the GNU mantra of no arbitrary limits, then we could declare ELOOP at >>> SYMLOOP_MAX instea

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Vladimir, > > hash.c in order to properly detect ELOOP, which must be done as part > > of an unlimited-depth link following algorithm. (If we didn't have > > the GNU mantra of no arbitrary limits, then we could declare ELOOP at > > SYMLOOP_MAX instead.) > > > Brent's algorithm is universal, se

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Eric Blake [2011-08-23 11:47:57 -0600]: > > On 08/23/2011 11:31 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >>> Maybe we should rename the canonicalize module to instead be >>> canonicalize_filename_mode, since it does _not_ provide canonicalize() >>> (well, canonicalize_filename_mode(file, CAN_EXISTING) is i

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Eric Blake
On 08/23/2011 11:31 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: First of all, newer windows do have symlinks. Does mingw support them natively? If not, then we should get that fixed in mingw; perhaps by starting with an lstat() that actually works on windows symlinks. Second, canonicalize is already an exte

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Eric Blake [2011-08-23 10:35:52 -0600]: > > On 08/23/2011 10:28 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >>> Does Hurd have SYMLOOP_MAX? If so, then yes, that would be a reasonable >>> change. If not, then how do you propose implementing canonicalize on >>> Hurd, without imposing a limit not already present

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Eric Blake
On 08/23/2011 10:28 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: Does Hurd have SYMLOOP_MAX? If so, then yes, that would be a reasonable change. If not, then how do you propose implementing canonicalize on Hurd, without imposing a limit not already present by the system? Are you saying that you want to replace r

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Eric Blake [2011-08-23 08:46:00 -0600]: > > On 08/23/2011 08:41 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >>> * Eric Blake [2011-08-23 08:03:02 -0600]: >>> >>> On 08/23/2011 07:56 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: Let me reiterate that the size of canonicalize is plain absurd:

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
> hash.c in order to properly detect ELOOP, which must be done as part > of an unlimited-depth link following algorithm. (If we didn't have > the GNU mantra of no arbitrary limits, then we could declare ELOOP at > SYMLOOP_MAX instead.) > Brent's algorithm is universal, sets no arbitrary limit and

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Eric Blake
On 08/23/2011 08:41 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: * Eric Blake [2011-08-23 08:03:02 -0600]: On 08/23/2011 07:56 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: Let me reiterate that the size of canonicalize is plain absurd: . 150+ files to implement a s

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Eric Blake [2011-08-23 08:03:02 -0600]: > > On 08/23/2011 07:56 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> Let me reiterate that the size of canonicalize is plain absurd: >> . >> 150+ files to implement a single function which takes ~160 li

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Eric Blake
On 08/23/2011 07:56 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: Let me reiterate that the size of canonicalize is plain absurd: . 150+ files to implement a single function which takes ~160 lines of C code. These files includes things like hash.c a

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-23 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Bruno Haible [2011-08-14 14:51:55 +0200]: > > Sam, if 'canonicalize' gets this support, would you be willing to use > 'canonicalize' Let me reiterate that the size of canonicalize is plain absurd: . 150+ files to implement a

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-14 Thread Sam Steingold
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > > Sam, if 'canonicalize' gets this support, would you be willing to use > 'canonicalize' instead of 'canonicalize-lgpl' in clisp? yes. -- Sam Steingold

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-14 Thread Bruno Haible
Sam Steingold wrote: > > The feature request is a bit odd, because it mixes the notion of > > "native Windows" and Cygwin. Cygwin is a platform that runs inside Windows. > > When you build mingw programs, and redistribute them, they are meant to > > run in a native Windows environment, in which no

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-13 Thread Sam Steingold
Hi Bruno, On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > > The feature request is a bit odd, because it mixes the notion of > "native Windows" and Cygwin. Cygwin is a platform that runs inside Windows. > When you build mingw programs, and redistribute them, they are meant to > run in a na

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-08-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Sam, Sam Steingold wrote in and : > > it appears that neither canonicalize nor canonicalize-lgpl support win32 > > shortcuts (either used directly or as used

Re: canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-07-27 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Sam Steingold [2011-05-17 14:11:54 -0400]: > > it appears that neither canonicalize nor canonicalize-lgpl support win32 > shortcuts (either used directly or as used by cygwin). > it would be nice if they did - then we would be able to use > canonicalize-lgpl in clisp. > > now clisp uses file w

canonicalize_file_name should support win32 shortcuts

2011-05-17 Thread Sam Steingold
it appears that neither canonicalize nor canonicalize-lgpl support win32 shortcuts (either used directly or as used by cygwin). it would be nice if they did - then we would be able to use canonicalize-lgpl in clisp. now clisp uses file w32shell.c: http://clisp.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/clisp/clisp/