Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A tale of two path separators

alexwlchan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 38 posts

Re: A tale of two path separators

#2

Post by VorpalWay »

Old Macs (which I grew up with) had even more baroque path handling than mentioned in the blog post:

Double colon (::) meant the same as .. on Unix/DOS, that is "go up one level". So you have to be careful when concatenating paths to not get double separators.

Paths starting with : were relative. If a path didn't start with the separator, the first component was the volume name (disk partition). Again, quite unlike Unix.

Also, remember it was common to have spaces in names on Mac, even the default harddrive on Macs was named "Macintosh HD". So an absolute path like "Macintosh HD:Programs:MacWrite" would have been common. (I grew up with Macs in Swedish, so I'm back translating the names here, could be that the names were slightly different in English.)

Re: A tale of two path separators

#3

Post by windowliker »

It took me a long time to understand why colon wasn't a valid character for file names on Mac and I still find the colon separator to be the least visible these days. Finder can display paths with the forward slash separator (defaults write com.apple.finder _FXShowPosixPathInTitle -bool YES), and yet forward slash may be used in a file name created through Finder as noted in the post, while colon cannot (which is not addressed), but creating a file in the terminal named with a colon is possible and the shell will escape it correctly in use. This file then shows up with a slash in place of the colon when viewed in Finder, and conversely the file with a slash in the name shows up in Terminal with a colon!

Re: A tale of two path separators

#4

Post by fragmede »

VorpalWay wrote: post #2

Old Macs (which I grew up with) had even more baroque path handling than mentioned in the blog post: Double colon (::) meant the same as .. on Unix/DOS, that is "go up one level". So you have to be careful when concatenating paths to not get double separators. Paths starting with : were relative. If a path didn't start with the separator, the first component was the volume name (disk partition). Again, quite unlike U…

Current macOS Finder let's you name files with a slash in them, rendered as a : in the terminal.

Re: A tale of two path separators

#5

Post by microtonal »

fragmede wrote: post #4
VorpalWay wrote: post #2

Old Macs (which I grew up with) had even more baroque path handling than mentioned in the blog post: Double colon (::) meant the same as .. on Unix/DOS, that is "go up one level". So you have to be careful when concatenating paths to not get double separators. Paths starting with : were relative. If a path didn't start with the separator, the first component was the volume name (disk partition). Again, quite unlike U…

Current macOS Finder let's you name files with a slash in them, rendered as a : in the terminal.

I think that the slash might be the rendering though? If you

    $ touch "foo:bar"
In the Terminal, then Finder renders it as foo/bar.

So who is lying, how is it stored in the directory entry in APFS itself?

Re: A tale of two path separators

#6

Post by VorpalWay »

fragmede wrote: post #4
VorpalWay wrote: post #2

Old Macs (which I grew up with) had even more baroque path handling than mentioned in the blog post: Double colon (::) meant the same as .. on Unix/DOS, that is "go up one level". So you have to be careful when concatenating paths to not get double separators. Paths starting with : were relative. If a path didn't start with the separator, the first component was the volume name (disk partition). Again, quite unlike U…

Current macOS Finder let's you name files with a slash in them, rendered as a : in the terminal.

Isn't that just what the original article that we all commented on described? I don't understand what you are trying to add to the conversation here.

Re: A tale of two path separators

#7

Post by BoingBoomTschak »

VorpalWay wrote: post #2

Old Macs (which I grew up with) had even more baroque path handling than mentioned in the blog post: Double colon (::) meant the same as .. on Unix/DOS, that is "go up one level". So you have to be careful when concatenating paths to not get double separators. Paths starting with : were relative. If a path didn't start with the separator, the first component was the volume name (disk partition). Again, quite unlike U…

Fun things is that I encountered that for the first time when using Clozure CL (https://ccl.clozure.com/) which quotes colons when converting paths to string even on Linux:

  $ cat x.lisp
  heredoc> (require :uiop)
  heredoc> (let ((p (make-pathname :name "foo:bar")))
  heredoc>   (format t "~@{~A~%~}" (namestring p) (uiop:native-namestring p)))
  heredoc> EOF
  $ ccl -b -Q -l x.lisp
Post reply on HN