From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3accd44abeec75ee X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Mario Klebsch Subject: Re: DOS/Win95 file names Date: 1999/06/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 488827137 References: <375fd4b4.608956077@news.dsuper.net> Organization: IRD InterNet Services GmbH Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jerry@jvdsys.stuyts.nl writes: >fluffy_pop@dsuper.net wrote: >: I'm being asked to validate the name format so that it satisfies the >: (8.3) DOS requirements (actually it's a hybrid because I'm accepting >: characters illegal under DOS but legal under Windows). It's a Ada >: console program and I'm working on a Win95 machine. >a) the filename has to be consistent with DOS requirements, in which case >you should not accept filenames that are illegal under DOS, or >b) you will be accepting Win32 filenames, but than there is not much sense >in restricting the name to 8.3. Why to you want to biuld in the problems of tomorrow today? The OS knows quit well, which filenames to accept and surely does have some rules, what to do, when the filenames do not satisfy their constraints. I far to often have had programs, that did this kind of checking, and I hated them all, when I was using them an a newer system, where the original contraints were gone. Those programs can make your live like hell. :-( 73, Mario -- Mario Klebsch Mario.Klebsch@braunschweig.netsurf.de