Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Is that '.tar and .zip' as in '.tar and .zip' or '.tar or .zip'?
.tar or .zip
> Aren't most tars still unindexed, requiring a full file scan anyway?
That was one I was not aware of... One more reason to use .zip!
Hey, .tgz people... Java's jar has used .zip as its format very successfully
until now. I really don't see a reason why we shouldn't do that. I agree
flexible is good, and I think that flexible would be easy if Archive::Tar,
Archive::Zip, Archive::* share the same interface. I actually can't say that
it's possible, because as this message is pointing, there are many
differences between the features that different archive formats offer, and I
can't see how they would offer the same functions... So I think we can start
with zip, and postpone the flexibility problem for when we define the
Archive::* implementations for Perl6, possibly stating that we'd like them
to have the same interface, so that we can use one or another with the same
code.
- Branden
