Re: proposed fileparts patch

[Bill Denney]

Hall, Benjamin wrote:
> I agree that the ispc is ugly.  I saw the is_sep_chars in the c++ and I agree 
> that a better solution would use that information (rather than having 
> effectively the same information in 2 different places).  What would we call 
> such a function, fileseplist or just dir_sep_chars?  I'll attempt a patch at 
> dirfns.cc for that next week.
>
> The only potential corner case is the filename 'c:somefile.txt', but I don't 
> think that is good practice for specifying filenames (at least I don't intend 
> to use it).  If we ignore this case, then I think it will be possible to 
> eliminate ispc() entirely.
>   
There are a couple of bugs with assuming that every instance of \ or /
is a file separator.  In *nix, "abc\123.m" could be a valid filename. 
Again, it would be bad form, but it's definitely valid (I think that you
may be able to make a file "abc/123.m" in *nix if you work really hard
at it).

Those corner cases are corner enough that they are likely not worth
coding around, though.

Have a good day,

Bill