Re: [boost] Filesystem Library: Formal Review

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-14 13:48:28

At 12:00 PM 9/14/2002, John Levon wrote:

 >"Canonical form
 >
 >Adjacent name, parent-directory elements in m_name have been recursively
 >removed. "
 >
 >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.

--Beman