Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] t0060: verify that basename() and dirname() work as expected

> Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:
> 
> > This particular section documents what is almost certainly a bug
> > in the cygwin basename() and also documents my choice of 'fix'.  (ie.
> > in my implementation I chose to return '/' for '//', which is one of
> > the possible options that POSIX allows.)
> > ...
> > POSIX says, in part [1]:
> >
> >     If the string pointed to by path consists entirely of the '/'
> >     character, basename() shall return a pointer to the string "/". If
> >     the string pointed to by path is exactly "//", it is
> >     implementation-defined whether '/' or "//" is returned.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/basename.html
> >
> > So we should expect other systems to differ, even if they support POSIX. (and maybe
> > not just this test case.)
> 
> Doesn't that mean the test shouldn't be insisting on the output
> being one that you arbitrarily pick?  It feels to me that it is
> wrong to say "We require // to become / unless we know we are on
> such and such systems".  Instead, shouldn't it be doing "We feed //
> to the function.  Either / or // is acceptable; any other value is a
> bug"?