On Wednesday 30 March 2005 8:49 pm, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > The last part of your script, i.e. the conversion of slashes to > > backslashes, is not only unnecessary, but is actually *less* robust than > > simply leaving the slashes as they are, (which eliminates any concern > > over what level of escaping you require). Unless you are using some > > seriously inept software, which goes out of its way to misinterpret > > slashes in path names, the Win32 BDOS will accept the slash and the > > backslash as equivalent -- indeed, this is equally true of all versions > > of MS-DOS since 2.00, (which was the first to support a hierarchical file > > system), and also of Win16, (which ran on top of MS-DOS in any case). > > It seems that the Bourne shell is therefore "seriously inept software" > These paths are fed into the configure script where they are used to > compute additional paths which are substituted into a configuration > header for use within the compiled software. Well, if by the "Bourne shell" you mean MSYS' Bourne shell, (which is actually `bash' masquerading as `sh'), I think you are mistaken. I *never* specify paths with backslashes, when using this shell, even to invoke native Win32 programs, and I have not had any problem as a result. Indeed, it is *only* if I try to use *backslashes* -- to show someone else how *bad* they are -- that I have ever experienced a problem. I have been using MSYS, as my command line environment of choice on Win32, for at least the last two years, (probably nearer to three), and I used Cygwin for about three years before that. Regards, Keith. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
