in reply to OS issues get everybody at some point

Not quite right. The problem (which I've known about since shortly after the article was published) is that File::Find and File::Spec disagree about the which of the two path separarators (backslash or slash) to use in WIndows.

Thus, the bug is either in File::Spec, or File::Find, or perlport, but I did code the program to specification according to what I could read. Since I've never owned a machine that can run Windows (ever!) (except under virtual PC, ok), there's no way to test it. And the point is that I shouldn't need to test it if I follow all the rules in all those documents.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

  • Comment on Re: OS issues get everybody at some point

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: OS issues get everybody at some point
by PodMaster (Abbot) on May 24, 2005 at 11:57 UTC
    The bug is in File::Find, as it doesn't use File::Spec to concatenate paths, so all paths returned by File::Find need to be run through File::Spec's canonpath

    MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
    I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
    ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

[reply]

      It is a bug to assume that File::Find returns "canonicalized" paths. It doesn't claim that it does. The bug was merlyn's assumption, not a failing in File::Find.

      You could claim that File::Find should be enhanced to conform to File::Spec's concept of canonical path formats. Or you could claim that File::Find should be using File::Spec instead of a ton of hard-coded '/'s. I'd be more likely to agree with the latter than the former, though the end result might be same, at least in some cases.

      - tye        

[reply]
[d/l]
Re: OS issues get everybody at some point
by jonadab (Parson) on May 24, 2005 at 13:07 UTC
    Since I've never owned a machine that can run Windows

    That _can_ (not _does_)... Wait, you're saying you've never owned a PC of the 8086 chip family? Wow, I didn't know there was anyone left in the first world who hadn't at one time or anther owned a PC. Even most dedicated Macheads I know have a marginally-useful used PC sitting around that they picked up at a flea market or garage sale for five bucks at one time or another in a moment of weakness.

    So, umm. Congratulations.
[reply]
      Howdy!

      Well, being very careful how I say this: I've never owned a PC that ran on an 8086 family chip. I've had custody of such, in my capacity as an officer in a non-profit, and my son (the black sheep, clearly) has a Windoze PC.

      The first PC I owned was an Atari 800. The next was a Fat Mac. That was followed by a Mac IIfx, a StarMax (703e Mac clone), and a 350Mhz G4 Sawtooth AGP box (still in service). Most recently, I splurged on a 15 PowerBook fully loaded.

      ...and my wife and my other son have G4 boxen of their own, and my daughter has a 703e Mac and the StarMax.

      ...so, meet another such...

      yours,
      Michael
[reply]
      Correct. I have never owned anything in the X86 family. Ever. Similar to the other thread, I've owned an Atari 800, then 1200XL, and a SOL-20. Then, I merely used my employer's computers until I could afford my first laptop, a Powerbook 140 (on which I wrote Learning Perl, first edition). I've gone through about 20 Mac laptops since then, and a couple of desktop machines.

      The computer that runs http://www.stonehenge.com is rented, and does in fact run with an X86 chip (an Athalon running OpenBSD). So, I'm careful to say "owned" for my claim.

      -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
      Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

[reply]

In Section Meditations