Re: is_absolute_path incorrect on Windows

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Giles Lean wrote:
>> Names are hard, but if I understood the original post, the
>> revised function is intended to check that the directory is
>> below the current working directory.

> We check for things like ".." other places, though we could roll that
> into the macro if we wanted. Because we are adding a new function, that
> might make sense.

Yeah. If we were to go with Greg's suggestion of inventing a separate
is_relative_to_cwd test function, I'd expect that to insist on no ".."
while it was at it.

That seems like a fairly clean approach in the abstract, but I agree
that somebody would have to look closely at each existing usage to be
sure it works out well.

regards, tom lane