Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcvax!guido From: guido@mcvax.uucp (Guido van Rossum) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: switchar Message-ID: <7129@boring.mcvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 1-Nov-86 11:47:53 EST Article-I.D.: boring.7129 Posted: Sat Nov 1 11:47:53 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 06:18:51 EST References: <1402@uw-june.UUCP> <15200040@hpcvlo.UUCP> Reply-To: guido@boring.uucp (Guido van Rossum) Organization: "Stamp Out BASIC" Committee, CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 21 Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax In article <15200040@hpcvlo.UUCP> bill@hp-pcd.UUCP (bill frolik) writes: >Microsoft didn't document SWITCHAR because they didn't want >people to use it, since it can potentially add a lot of confusion. Yeah, the real question is, why did they add the code in the first place? Sounds like somebody working on the code added it without approval. An alternative theory is that when MS-DOS 2.0 was first created, they weren't so sure that they were right in making / the option characer and \ the filename separator, and added some Trojan horse to their own software so that at a later time they could switch and people with old copies of MS-DOS would be able to use new software without getting a new copy of MS-DOS. Obviously, the switch never came, so maybe it should be removed from MS-DOS 3.0 (or has it already been removed?). Incidentally, the file system always accepts both / and \ in file names; it's only the shell (COMMAND.COM) and some applications that don't grok / in file names because it is always seen as an option, even in the middle of a word! -- Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam