RE: Win32 Short filenames - comments?
- Ok, I'll fix it up, make sure it has doco.
I wasn't realy convinced about :X either, but
1) :S might be useful for something else
2) :~ is already taken (sorry Vince & Steve, that's home-directory
I could used :8 I guess (for 8.3)
I didn't choose :X very carefully, just a proof of concept, but
1) it's way out of the way for any other further extensions to the
2) secondly it matched the /X from DIR /X which is how you can view
the short filenames in a prompt.
Vince, Steve - what do you think - any votes?
As to the other question - it shortens the whole path. That's what the
API function does...
I had to modify/optimise :~ and :. so that if the path had already been
expanded (via :p or :X), then it wouldn't
try expanding it again. Somebody will need to cast their eyes over that
bit to make sure it handles everything correctly as far as memory
allocation/deallocation. I think it's correct, but I'm not familiar
enough with that code to do it.
Is it OK to have the WinAPI function as it is? Or would you prefer me to
wrap it in a mch_ wrapper? I guess it'd be
nice if it worked across Samba shares from linux.
From: Bram Moolenaar [mailto:Bram@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 October 2002 7:13 PM
To: Michael Geddes
Subject: Re: Win32 Short filenames - comments?
Michael Geddes wrote:
> A call to win32 vimmers!Since this is just a small change and can be very useful for people who
> I _have created_ a patch that adds a modifier which is currently :X
> (from dir /x) that modifies the filename to be the windows short file
> ie : expand('%:X')
> Would return the full short filename of the current file.
> expand('%:X:.') also works (as does :~).
need this, I'm not against including this feature.
- Why ":X"? Isn't there a more obvious name to get the short filename?
- Does this only shorten the last part of the path or also the directory
names before it?
From "know your smileys":
(X0||) Double hamburger with lettuce and tomato
/// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net
/// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.vim.org
\\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.a-a-p.org
\\\ Lord Of The Rings helps Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org/lotr.html
> Is it OK to have the WinAPI function as it is? Or would you prefer me toMy gut instinct is to have a mch_ wrapper - more to keep
> wrap it in a mch_ wrapper? I guess it'd be
> nice if it worked across Samba shares from linux.
API-specific code out of the generic base as much as
Legal Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender of this message are
not necessarily those of Application Solutions Ltd. Information in this
e-mail may be confidential and is for the use of the intended recipient
only, no mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise such
privilege. Please advise the sender if you receive this e-mail by mistake.