[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC (Version 1)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Issue: PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC (Version 1)
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: 12 Jan 89 00:30 PST
- Sender: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
[lmm: from Ballot]
I can understand why someone might find the need for :UNSPECIFIC
in Unix unclear, but I think that is because it is not clear what
filenames would be parsed as pathnames with :UNSPECIFIC type [*];
:UNSPECIFIC is nonetheless useful for building pathnames directly
when you know which case you want and need a way to specify it.
[*] Does a name without "." parse as type NIL or :UNSPECIFIC?
Different Unix programs use different conventions. Some are
willing to merge in a type field, others, such as the C compiler,
leave names as-is. So the "right" answer may vary.