Message142330
I agree the two calls should probably be consistent, though I also suspect that VOLUME_NAME_NT is always longer than VOLUME_NAME_DOS.
My justification for using VOLUME_NAME_NT is that the final name might not be located on a DOS-accessible name. My suspicion was that VOLUME_NAME_NT was more general purpose (though somewhat less user-friendly), so preferable in the case that the name isn't exposed to the user. It's been a while since I've investigated it, but I think you can have symlinks to UNC paths as well as \\?\ paths, so my concern is VOLUME_NAME_DOS might not work with those paths. Some tests are probably called for.
In the case of nt._getfinalpathname(), it's not obvious to me how it might be used, so VOLUME_NAME_DOS may be more appropriate. Or perhaps _getfinalpathname should pass that parameter through. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-08-18 14:56:25 | jaraco | set | recipients:
+ jaraco, pitrou, tim.golden, brian.curtin |
2011-08-18 14:56:25 | jaraco | set | messageid: <1313679385.51.0.149765023342.issue12777@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-08-18 14:56:24 | jaraco | link | issue12777 messages |
2011-08-18 14:56:24 | jaraco | create | |
|