On 23 May 2011, at 22:14, Mark H Weaver wrote: > I really like the basic gist behind Noah's proposal, to allow programs > to optionally represent paths (roughly) as sequences of path components. > I haven't worked out all the details, and I'm glad to leave that job to > someone else, but I do have a few comments to add: ... > Should our existing POSIX interfaces which accept pathnames be extended > to optionally accept these higher-level path objects?
it might be a part of POSIX in the future. I mentioned a similar thing on the standardization list, where it was discussed, and I thin somebody is working on it. Hans https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=show_archive.tpl&source=L&listname=austin-group-l&id=13889
