Re: convert-standard-filename

[Stefan Monnier]

>>>> But how should it decide what is relative and what is not, e.g. in the
>>>> case of "c:/foo" (or worse "c:foo") mentioned in the docstring?
>>> Why by file-name-absolute-p, of course ;-)
>> This would mean that the input is interpreted in an OS-dependent way.
>> It would seem to make more sense to say that the arg to
>> convert-filename-argument (or its new replacement) should be
>> a Unix-style filename, i.e. "C:<foo>" is always interpreted as
>> a relative file name, even under Window or DOS.
> If we allow OS-dependent file names then does it not make more sense
> to interpret them in the OS-dependent way? At least that seems much
> more likely to make users surprised.

The whole point of convert-standard-filename was to provide an
OS-dependent file name from an OS-independent one (typically from
a constant filename in a package).  So interpreting the input to this
function in an OS-dependent way is wrong.


        Stefan