[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows-specific bug 11183
From: |
Paul D. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Windows-specific bug 11183 |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:04:34 -0500 |
%% "Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
>> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:03:45 +0100
>> From: Alessandro Vesely <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>>
>> > OK... does this mean "yes, I think this patch is useful and should be
>> > applied"?
>>
>> Yes, it does. Or else we should also remove the other HAVE_DOS_PATHS
>> in the same function so as to ban backslashes from %-patterns.
ez> The other HAVE_DOS_PATHS fragment handles backslashes in _filenames_,
ez> while this one handles backslashes in _patterns_. So they are not
ez> equivalent, and their omission for patterns is on purpose (Paul stated
ez> the reasons).
One thing that could be done, if it was deemed useful, is to make the
backslash-in-patterns smarter so that a backslash before a % escaped the
%, but a backslash anywhere else was just a backslash.
This, obviously, would just be a DOS/Windows change.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist