On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 13:26:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/5/13 7:33 AM, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 07:11:49 UTC, Joshua Niehus wrote:
On Wednesday, 5 June 2013 at 06:27:46 UTC, Dylan Knutson
wrote:
"which exposes a much more palatable interface to path string
manipulation".
[...snip...]
I'd like some feedback on what others think about this;
personally, I prefer the current implementation and found it
easy to
use for the multitudes of tiny scripts I've written. I
wouldn't like
to create an "object" just to call isAbsolute.
That being said, I don't see why having the struct would hurt.
Nice work by the way
Is there any reason why we couldn't keep the string-based free
functions
around as well?
I don't have a strong opinion regarding Path object vs. string
functions, and I agree both have advantages and disadvantages.
But I would be opposed to having both.
Andrei
Because of duplication of implementation? Or is it simply "2 ways
to do the same thing" is bad?
I was imagining the following situation:
Free functions, similar/identical to current
Struct that provides all current functionality by wrapping
the free functions, plus any extra stuff that is only appropriate
for a path object.
Unfortunately the current naming scheme doesn't really suit this
idea that well.
