Hi Alexandre,
Just wondering whether there was a reason that the patch at http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/11/0339.html was not commited. My understanding of the ensuing debate was that it was acceptable.
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz writes:
Just wondering whether there was a reason that the patch at http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/11/0339.html was not commited. My understanding of the ensuing debate was that it was acceptable.
No, I'm afraid it's not. As I explained, you need to check that the file exists first. Also, DOSFS_GetFullName is called all over the place, so we need to go through all of them to make sure the behavior is correct; for instance your patch will break FindFirstFile since we have to allow wildcards there.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz writes:
Just wondering whether there was a reason that the patch at http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/11/0339.html was not commited. My understanding of the ensuing debate was that it was acceptable.
No, I'm afraid it's not. As I explained, you need to check that the file exists first. Also, DOSFS_GetFullName is called all over the place, so we need to go through all of them to make sure the behavior is correct; for instance your patch will break FindFirstFile since we have to allow wildcards there.
Ok, that wasn't clear. I'll have a look.
Are you sure you want the functions to only return the invalid argument error if the file is actually not found? It creates inconsistancies. An invalid argument is invalid whether the file is there or not.
Maybe there are other ways to deal with the FindFirst/Next?
Shachar
Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz writes:
Are you sure you want the functions to only return the invalid argument error if the file is actually not found? It creates inconsistancies. An invalid argument is invalid whether the file is there or not.
It's not invalid on Unix, that's the whole point. If we make them illegal right away it means you won't be able to access legally named Unix files. While checking for existence first will make no difference in 99% of the cases, it will do the right thing when a file with a wildcard exists in the file system, and I think that's worth a little inconsistency.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz writes:
Are you sure you want the functions to only return the invalid argument error if the file is actually not found? It creates inconsistancies. An invalid argument is invalid whether the file is there or not.
It's not invalid on Unix, that's the whole point. If we make them illegal right away it means you won't be able to access legally named Unix files. While checking for existence first will make no difference in 99% of the cases, it will do the right thing when a file with a wildcard exists in the file system, and I think that's worth a little inconsistency.
I'm not sure I agree, but this is one of those cases where I guess we won't convince each other. As your'e the boss on that one, that's what I'll do.
Shachar
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Shachar Shemesh