On 6/8/13 10:45 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 14:14:33 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 14:08:59 UTC, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 17:27:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
However, there are times where it is convenient to be able to
explode a
path into a structure, where each part is clearly separate from the
next.
Tuple!(
string, "drive",
string[], "folders",
string, "basename",
string, "extension"
)
parsePath(string path);
string buildPath(string drive, string[] folders, string basename,
string extension);
[...]
But why stop at the parts you have listed there?
The moment I clicked "Send", I realised that offering multiple
decompositions would prevent recomposition, because you'd have to
choose which parts to combine.
Using D's property functions, this should not actually be a problem. The
struct could be opaque in regards to which members are actually
attributes, and which are functions.
Eg:
Path path = Path(`C:\MyFile.txt`);
path.filename = "main.cpp";
path.extension = "d";
assert(path.buildPath() == `C:\main.d`));
I don't see any reason for that to not work.
Looks like the proposal may be converted into something liked by all - a
small PathComponents struct with the appropriate primitives. A high
ratio of usefulness to size would be key to acceptance.
Andrei
