From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15264 invoked by alias); 24 May 2006 10:05:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 15253 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2006 10:05:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 May 2006 10:05:21 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 May 2006 11:04:10 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 24 May 2006 11:04:10 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "Thread TITTTL'd!" Subject: RE: Handling special characters (\/:*?"<>|) gracefully Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 10:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <04c701c67f19$66dd7fe0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <447420E3.5B3609B3@dessent.net> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q2/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 On 24 May 2006 10:01, Brian Dessent wrote: > mwoehlke wrote: > >> (Speaking of case sensitivity, is it a Windows limitation that Cygwin >> can't do this? I'm pretty sure it isn't an NTFS limitation, as Interix >> has true case-sensitivity.) > > As I understand it, the win32 API preserves case but is not case > sensitive. The native API is both, so in theory an application that > used only native calls could cope with both README and Readme, but no > win32 app could. Not so. See MSDN://CreateFile/FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS. The actual requirement is "NTFS not FAT" rather than "Native API not Win32 API". > So, from the standpoint of Cygwin this is pretty > useless as A) it would take significant code rewrites to use the native > API everywhere (not to mention backcompat hell for 9x/ME) and B) it > would lead to the situation (which we briefly got a taste of somewhere > in a past 1.5.x release) where Cygwin was able to create files that > could not be deleted by Explorer or any other regular Windows app. Well, the /real/ problem about those files (which matched DOS special device names) was that you couldn't remove them from cygwin either; not being able to delete them from the very same command shell where you created them is far worse than having to use the same tool to delete something that you used to create it. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....