From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190801032235t860acd1w8a3041a5214b45f0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:35:17 +1100 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] frogs and osx In-Reply-To: <20080104022953.CE1461E8C1F@holo.morphisms.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <33bbf51a2f464189183909eb31c415b8@quintile.net> <20080104022953.CE1461E8C1F@holo.morphisms.net> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 26dd5868-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 my recollection is frogs was for files created by mistake. nothing to do with UTF-8. as for ICON\r ... can we call that consistency by obscurity. after all it is not to hard at all to subvert but a user won't, click click click nuh. also, i remember well when ' ' was snuck out to see if anyone noticed. it stuck. brucee On Jan 4, 2008 1:29 PM, Russ Cox wrote: > > Using u9fs to access my mac I find I cannot see directories (folders) > > that have their own specific icon. > > > > This turns out to be because these directories contain a file > > Icon whiel is ASCII 13, and /sys/src/9/port/chan.c:1656 > > defines the frogs illegal in filenames to include carriage return. > > > > Why does frogs contain these latters, My feeling is that only > > should be illegal, perhaps these are a hangover from pre utf-8 > > days? > > > > Perhaps there is a good reason for not allowing such characters, > > I can see that creating such files should be discouraged but > > failing a read(2) of a directory containing such files seems extreme. > > > > Is it historic or there for a very good reason=99 ? > > In addition to NUL, surely / should be illegal! > I certainly wouldn't want \n in file names; \r seems just too close. > In general, I'm quite happy that file names are guaranteed > not to contain such difficult characters. There's very little > benefit to be had by allowing them, and they complicate many > things (witness xargs -0 on Unix). > > A better workaround for this particular problem would be > for u9fs to rewrite the name or omit that entry entirely. > > Russ > >