On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:12:22 +0100, Regan Heath <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:26:39 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> 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.
C# has both:
1. System.IO.FileInfo and System.IO.DirectoryInfo non-static/instance
classes with methods i.e. Delete()
2. System.File and System.Directory static classes with methods
accepting strings i.e. Delete(string name)
I forgot to say.. I've used both in different situations. Sometimes you
get a FileInfo/DirectoryInfo from another method, or you have created one
because you're going to re-use the path/information a lot (to get file
attributes etc) and sometimes you just need to build a path using
Path.Combine (into a string) and delete it, or similar.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
