On 05-Apr-00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Request for Comments on Split-Path Revision
> >However, you would normally think that a split path type of function would
> >separate the directory path from the file name itself. This would take
> %a/b/c/
> >and return a directory path of %a/b/c/ and a file of none (not a file of
%"",
> >which is a file with no name). However, you loose the iterative "peeling"
> >shown above.
> >Since split-path has other issues that we will be fixing very soon, I would
> >like to get your comments on this issue soon.
> Isn't this a good case for refinements? While, I'm not sure what the
> best default behavior should be, split-path/file and split-path/dir
> refinements seem like reasonable extensions to add.
Right. We want to be able to get the dir/path and file name separately.
--
---===///||| Donald Dalley |||\\\===---
The World of AmiBroker Support
http://webhome.idirect.com/~ddalley
UIN/ICQ#: 65203020
