From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-14 13:48:28
At 12:00 PM 9/14/2002, John Levon wrote:
>Adjacent name, parent-directory elements in m_name have been recursively
>This implies that "foo/bar/../../" is not canonicalized when in this
>form. Is this correct ? Is this desired ?
"foo/bar/../../" is invalid, because of the trailing "/".
"foo/bar/../.." is valid, and would be reduced to "".
There was already a test case in path_test.cpp that was essentially
similar, but I've added a test using exactly "foo/bar/../.." and it does
pass for five Win32 compilers.
I wouldn't mind a clearer formulation of the wording you quoted above, but
couldn't come up with anything better offhand.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk