From: Daryle Walker (dwalker07_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-13 16:38:48
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 6:27 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 01:31 PM 6/12/2003, Daryle Walker wrote:
>> Is it possible to override this and use "." or ".." as regular object
> No. Likewise there is no escape mechanism that allows you to include
> "/" in a name.
> There are a bunch of reasons - but particularly it would be creating
> names that will just be rejected by many (or even most) modern
> operating systems. What would be the point of that? It is the same as
> with requests for allowing full URI syntax in paths; without any
> mechanism in the operational functions allowing those paths, what
> would be the point?
So users with platforms that could support those object names are out
Are these limitations mentioned in the docs?
[a few seconds pass...]
I just thought of something. What happens on systems that don't
support certain non-controversial characters? Or what happens if the
environment supports characters that are untypeable? Some sort of
escape mechanism may be required. (The Unicode escapes may suffice,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk