Message114070
In the case where I did use VOLUME_NAME_NT, I think I chose it because it returned a more robust result. That is, it's not clear what the result is if the result is not on a volume that is assigned a drive letter, but all files referenced must have a VOLUME_NAME_NT.
In other usage, I found that use of VOLUME_NAME_NT was unnatural, because it returned for the user a path that would be unfamiliar, rather than the more traditional VOLUME_NAME_DOS.
So, where the result is to be used by the interpreter and isn't exposed to the user, it seems prudent to use VOLUME_NAME_NT, and where the user will see the result, use VOLUME_NAME_DOS.
I admit, this is only a rule of thumb and may be subject to correction, but this was my motivation when making these selections. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-08-16 19:46:31 | jaraco | set | recipients:
+ jaraco, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, brian.curtin |
2010-08-16 19:46:31 | jaraco | set | messageid: <1281987991.19.0.923844995468.issue9445@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-08-16 19:46:29 | jaraco | link | issue9445 messages |
2010-08-16 19:46:29 | jaraco | create | |
|