On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:31:25 +0300 Bulat Ziganshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Juanma, > > Saturday, December 15, 2007, 4:24:43 AM, you wrote: > > > Because what Yitzchak Gale proposed and I seconded does not mean that > > getHomeDirectory will not "follow the Windows API", unless very > > specifically requested by setting HOME. > > i'm against this idea. one can setup HOME for some specific program > and then find that all his ghc-compiled programs are changed their > behavior. ghc don't have a goal of emulating Unix standards in windows > environment so such behavior will look unexpectedly I too agree, and would add that (as someone pointed out earlier) it's trivial to wrap the function in question. Further, not only is it trivial but it's "more correct" in the sense that O/S specific behavior should be isolated whenever possible, and such isolation is certainly possible here. Create a class that defines, but does not implement, the required methods, and create an instance for the O/S in use. That's clean, simple, and is guaranteed to not break existing working programs. -- Seth Kurtzberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > Best regards, > Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
