On Saturday, 15 September 2018 at 23:06:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 6:54:50 AM MDT Josphe Brigmo
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Saturday, 15 September 2018 at 12:38:41 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 September 2018 at 10:57:56 UTC, Josphe Brigmo
>
> wrote:
>> Phobos *NEEDS* to be modified to work with these newer OS's.
>
> You need to look at the source code before posting. The code
> for remove is literally
>
> DeleteFileW(name);
>
> it is a one-line wrapper, and obviously uses the unicode
> version.
>
> https://github.com/dlang/phobos/blob/master/std/file.d#L1047
It doesn't matter, the fact is that something in phobos is
broke. Do you really expect me to do all the work? The fact
that using executeShell or "\\?\" solves 90% of the
problems(maybe all of them) proves that phobos is not up to
par.
Using std.file should be on par with using the Windows API from
C or C++. It doesn't try to fix the arguably broken behavior of
the Windows API with regards to long paths but requires that
the programmer deal with them just like they would in C/C++.
The main differences are that the std.file functions in
question use D strings rather than C strings, and they
translate them to the UTF-16 C strings for you rather than
requiring you to do it. But they don't do anything like add
"\\?\" for you any more than the Windows API itself does that.
If you consider that to be broken, then sorry. For better or
worse, it was decided that it was better to let the programmer
deal with those intricacies rather than trying to tweak the
input to make it work based on the idea that that could have
undesirable consequences in some circumstances. On some level,
that does suck, but the Windows API does not make it easy to
make this work like it would on a *nix system without
introducing subtle bugs.
If you find that the std.file functions don't work whereas
using the same input to the Windows API functions in C/C++
would have, then there's a bug in the D code, and it needs to
be fixed, but if it acts the same as the C/C++ code, then it's
working as intended.
- Jonathan M Davis
This attitude is unfortunately the cause of a lot frustration
among cross-platform developers like me.
I chose D for my file scripting needs because it's a
cross-platform language.
I expect that calling the function F on system X will work the
same as calling that same function on system Y.
That's the contract in cross-platform programming.
Unfortunately D fails at being consistent.
I recently learned this lesson with my Resync tool.
No everybody wants the cross-platform to behave inconsistently.
For example, in the past I've implemented a proprietary
cross-platform C++ game engine for Windows, PS2, Xbox and
GameCube.
The games needed some tuning for the graphics, etc.
But code-wise, the engine made the games behave consistently
across the different platforms.
This was all about making each method of each class behaving the
same. As simple as that.
Indeed, on some platforms, the game engine also provided extra
classes and/or methods to add some functionalities specific to
these platforms.
But the common trunc was implemented (!) to behave the same. That
was what our game developers expected...
