Subject:
|
Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Jan 2000 21:49:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5493 times
|
| |
|
|
Uwe Denzer wrote:
>
> Dave Baum wrote:
>
> > If there are 2n+1 backslashes, then it is interpreted as n backslashes and
> > the quote becomes part of the arg (and the quoting state remains
> > unchanged)
> >
> > If anyone knows the "official" rules here, please let me know.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know "official" rules nor did I find a place where to
> look them up.
>
> Nevertheless, I can only think that this whole escaping stuff is not compliant
> with normal, expected Win32 behavior. The backslash is the standard character
> for paths, and the doublequote is standard for embracing long filenames since
> Win32. So, it makes hardly any sense to define just that backslash as the
> escape character, where forms like "....\" really appear frequently in the
> DOS/Win32 world. In other words: I am pretty sure (although can't prove it)
> that using the backslash as an escape character is incorrect under Win32.
You are wrong. The precedent, naturally, is C, coz NQC, isn't quite,
err, C. Backslash _is_ the escaping character in C, even on Windoze. So,
to write \a\b\c as a correct C string (yes, even a VC++ one), you have
to write "\\a\\b\\c", and if you want to use UNC it gets worse, e.g.
"\\\\yourmachine\\mount\\a\\b\\c".
Of course, the whole use of \ is a completely lame attempt to pretend
that its somehow different from the real standard of / for path
component separation, so all known versions of C on Windoze will
actually let you use those instead, so you can write the above two
examples as "/a/b/c" and "//yourmachine/mount/a/b/c", which is the way
God (i.e. K, R and T) intended it anyway.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
| (...) I don't deny that this is the way C does it. But nevertheless, when you pass parameters *on the Win command line*, shouldn't you follow the behavior that is de-facto standard (even if "incorrect" from a C view) for *that* OS, irresepective of (...) (27 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
| (...) Unfortunately, I don't know "official" rules nor did I find a place where to look them up. Nevertheless, I can only think that this whole escaping stuff is not compliant with normal, expected Win32 behavior. The backslash is the standard (...) (27 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
