I meant information missing from the
OP's post. Why would you think I meant information missing from the module?
That makes no sense!
I thought you were replying to the content of the parent
post. I have no idea what information you think is missing, and for what
purpose it's missing.
Weeellll, I was replying to the parent post. You see, sometimes someone posts a
question, and they leave out information which could make it easier to figure
out what they need. So some of us ask questions to draw out what the problem
was. I don't know why this confuses you. Are you just twisting my words for
assuming the module was doing what it
was supposed to, I couldn't imagine why would it return
So you can't even imagine them helping either, but you
recommended trying them anyway? I suppose there's nothing lost by trying,
thought I'm not sure how one goes about trying to get buggy
Weeellll, since this paragraph doesn't seem to make sense either, except for
being sarcastic and hostile, I'm not going to say much here. I wrote something
off the cuff that I thought might be helpful. In hindsight, it was off the
mark. Mea culpa.
I got the correct and expected
That's what the OP is getting. It's not what he's
Weeellll, actually, we have already established that the correct answer is
\foo\go\do. And we have established that unless there's a UNC pathname
involved, we would expect the path to resolve to \foo\go\do. Soooo, I think we
are already in agreement that this is the correct and expected result.
The OP had expected something different, but I think we have also
established that he is aware that they were relying on what turned out to be a
side effect of a bug that shows itself when you try to concatenate an empty
string with an existing path -- and he's said they will change their code
and/or processes. But I think you knew this.
Forgive me, El Ikkey. I know that I, marmot, do not have your superior
intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at
something else, and are looking to take it out on me?