From: Aleksej S. <as...@in...> - 2011-05-04 07:06:08
|
Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes: >> * Pascal J. Bourguignon <cwo@vasbezngvzntb.pbz> [2011-05-03 22:22:25 +0200]: >> >> Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> writes: >> >>> the problem with the escaping solution is that it is not backward compatible. >> >> Do you know a lot of files with backslashes in their names? > > nope, and I don't know any files with "?" and "*" in their names either. I made many such files in my life. You just need to make a mistake and invoke "something > file*", e.g. run ":>/tmp/test*" in Almquist shell derivative (NetBSD and FreeBSD sh, called "ash" or "dash" in linux-based systems). Files with question mark in name are met more frequently than that, mostly because it is perfectly valid to use them in book titles. >> I say it the escaping solution is backward compatible in practice, >> because nobody in his sane mind would name a file with a backslash in >> it, so there are no such files, therefore no need to keep the meaning >> of names containing backslashes. > > therefore this whole issue is purely academic, right? Right, the whole issue is purely academic, file names should be no longer than six RADIX-50 symbols (with optional extension no longer than three symbols). -- HE CE3OH... |