comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Re: file

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: file_basename(): bug or feature?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: file_basename(): bug or feature? [message #42767]

Thu, 24 February 2005 14:08

Paul Van Delst[1]
Messages: 1157
Registered: April 2002

Senior Member

James Kuyper wrote:
> Paul Van Delst wrote:
> ...
>
>> Couldn't you just loop over the types of path separators? (e.g.
>> ['/','\',':',..etc] for the various systems? Are any of the path
>> separators on different systems allowable filename characters on others?
>
>
> Yes, certainly. That's what makes it such a pain. In particular, "\" and
> ":" are allowable filename characters on Unix systems. It's a little
> tricky to create a filename containing a "\" with shell commands,
> because the "\" is interpretted by the shell, unless it's either quoted
> or escaped. Try:
>
> echo hello > \\
> vi "\"

Oof! I see. I couldn't vi the file, but it was created. Wot a pita.

paulv

--
Paul van Delst
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP/EMC

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: file_basename(): bug or feature? By: Paul Van Delst[1] on Thu, 24 February 2005 14:08
		Re: file_basename(): bug or feature? By: James Kuyper on Thu, 24 February 2005 13:48
		Re: file_basename(): bug or feature? By: Paul Van Delst[1] on Thu, 24 February 2005 13:40
		Re: file_basename(): bug or feature? By: Benjamin Hornberger on Thu, 24 February 2005 13:34
		Re: file_basename(): bug or feature? By: David Fanning on Thu, 24 February 2005 13:28

Previous Topic:	file_basename(): bug or feature?
Next Topic:	/YNOZERO

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 10:19:46 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.03876 seconds