On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 09:48:23 H. S. Teoh wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 07:47:24PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: > > On 15.05.2012 19:32, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > >On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 05:14:15PM +0200, ref2401 wrote: > > >>general question: > > >>-std.file, > > > > > >std.file is badly named. It really deals with the _filesystem_, that is, > > >pathnames, etc.. It doesn't deal with individual files. > > > > Bleh, std.file.read does just that - reads entire file into memory. > > In essence std.file works with filesystem and files, and unit of > > work is a file. > > [...] > > OK, that is totally deserving of a WAT. The split between std.file, > std.stdio, std.stream, etc., are just soooo illogical. I'm hoping that > std.io will eventually clear up this crazy mess, but I suspect std.file > will still remain. Is there any logical reason why we shouldn't rename > it to std.filesystem or std.fs? Calling it std.file is needlessly > confusing, esp. given that most of the functions actually concerned with > file I/O are in std.stdio (or the future std.io).
std.file operates on files. I don't see anything wrong with it. Most of it isn't I/O though (aside from read and write which operate on the whole file at once). The I/O stuff is in std.stdio. I really don't think that the current separation is a problem. std.stdio definitely needs some work (hence the future std.io), but I think that std.file is fine as-is. Renaming it would break code to no benefit IMHO. - Jonathan M Davis
