From: | Giles Lean <giles(dot)lean(at)pobox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |
Date: | 2010-06-01 02:58:28 |
Message-ID: | 20100601025828.7703.qmail@sapphire.netherstone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> /* NOTE: these two functions aren't complementary under windows,
> * be sure to use the right one */
>
> /* Check path always means the same thing regardless of cwd */
> is_absolute_path()
> /* Check that path is under cwd */
> is_relative_path()
Um ... isn't that second function name pretty misleading, if
what you want is what the comment above it says?
Assuming the comment is what you want (presumably, else you'd
just negate a test of is_absolute_path()) then my suggestions
for (IMHO :-) clearer names would be is_subdir_path() if you
still want "path" in the name, or just is_subdir() if the
meaning will be clear enough from context.
Giles
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-01 03:02:21 | Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows |
Previous Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-06-01 02:55:11 | Re: BUG #5487: dblink failed with 63 bytes connection names |