Re: Regression in pathname between version 2.6.14 to 2.7.1

On Sat, 21 Feb 2026, Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings!  Seems fine in my tests, but I'm still unsure whether it is
> not better to throw an error and point out the faulty pathname
> concatenation.  Seems like we are just covering up bad code out of
> convenience.
In any Unix-like system,
foo//////////bar
is absolutely legal, and identical to
foo/bar
Why throw an error for an absolutely correct pathname?

Andrey