> I'm sure you anticipated this comment :). Seeing a ':' in a path brings > back horrible memories for me. I am not sure if this is just an > aesthetic judgment, or if the "UNIX way" would actually be better. If > it's just an asthetic thing, then I'll get over it, but I can't help but > think there is code out there that would manage better with UNIX paths > rather than DOS paths. > > I haven't looked at the code yet, so I don't know how much easier the > use of the colon character makes things. What do you think about using > "/flash0/testfile.txt" rather than "flash0/textfile.txt"?
Yes, I was expecting it! So I had 3 options in mind: Option 1 - Use a "drive" name as was implemented. Btw, it's not limited to single letter drive names! Sure if someone really likes DOS, they could use A:, B:, etc. This choice is extremely easy to parse. And it also brings me fond memories of AmigaDOS! Option 2 - Use a directory as a mount point like Unix but without implementing a full tree struct. Also very easy to parse, but somehow I find it very non-elegant because there would be no root path and such. I just personally dislike it because it looks incomplete, which brings me to: Option 3 - Use a proper tree structure with mount points, mounts inside other mount's directories, etc. This is quite harder to do properly but would be my preferred aesthetic choice. But this needs extra things like ensuring the ordering of mounts, more error handling (if a root mount fails for any reason what to do with the remaining drives, etc). I would like to move to this but it could be added later because it's basically adding code and what is in place stays there, I think. If you think a tree structure is a must and "drive" names are an aberration, I would be OK at giving a try on implementing a proper VFS! Cheers, Fabio Utzig
