On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:48:54 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 10:32:36 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:55:50 +0100, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 07:05:52 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad
wrote:
[...]
Let me add some more to this. To justify the addition of
such a type, it needs to pull its own weight. For added
value, it could do one or both of the following:
Does System.IO.DirectoryInfo:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.directoryinfo.aspx
Add sufficient value to justify it's existence to your mind?
vs just having System.IO.Directory:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.directory.aspx
They add great value, but that is a completely different
discussion, as these are more similar to std.file.DirEntry.
The added value is mainly in the performance benefits; for
example,
if (exists(f) && isFile(f) && timeLastModified(f) < d) ...
requires three filesystem lookups (stat() calls), whereas
auto de = dirEntry(f);
if (de.exists && de.isFile && de.timeLastModified < d) ...
is just one.
I see no such benefit in the proposed Path type.
Path and dirEntry are different modules with different goals to
fulfill. I don't think it's appropriate to compare a module whose
function is path manipulation with one whose is querying
filesystem information.
