Can non-canonicalized forms of filesystem paths be significant? (eg. "foo//bar", "foo/./bar",...
Channel: Roel Van de Paar
Date: 24/11/2020

Unix & Linux: Can non-canonicalized forms of filesystem paths be significant? (eg. "foo//bar", "foo/./bar", and "foo/../bar")

Helpful?  Please support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/roelvandepaar

With thanks & praise to God, and with thanks to the many people who have made this project possible! | Content (except music & images) licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 | Music: https://www.bensound.com/royalty-free-music | Images: https://stocksnap.io/license & others | With thanks to user Kevin (https://unix.stackexchange.com/users/11750), user Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' (https://unix.stackexchange.com/users/885), user Cross Compilereror (https://unix.stackexchange.com/users/19388), and the Stack Exchange Network (http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/39735). Trademarks are property of their respective owners. Disclaimer: All information is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. You are responsible for your own actions. Please contact me if anything is amiss at Roel D.OT VandePaar A.T gmail.com.