So that I do not make mistake:
The fix is the second solution. Now do we have somewhere the first one?
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-08-09 8:47 GMT+02:00 Alistair Grant <akgrant0...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Stef,
>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:00:04PM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
>> > Hi Alistair
>> > I'm going over the green build first.
>> > - Then also
>> > https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/18042/FileSystem-a-file-doesn-t-exist-but-still-exists
>> > I read it but do you suggest to drop it and close it?
>> I don't think this issue should be dropped, there is a regular stream of
>> questions to the mailing list from newcomers getting confused by the
>> current behaviour.
>> There are basically two opposing proposals:
>> 1. Modify FileReference>>/ to accept a path and parse it correctly
>> (which is what I proposed).
>> 2. Modify FileReference>>/ to explicitly reject an argument which
>> includes the path delimiter (and it should suggest using #resolve:).
>> The first proposal is more "practical", and the second is more "pure",
>> keeping the to original design goals and abstractions.
>> Both have had multiple people support them, and both are better than the
>> current situation, however it is subjective as to which of the two
>> proposals is better.
> I would vote for first solution
>> I'm not sure what the normal tie-breaking process is, but I'm happy to
>> defer to the Pharo Association (Esteban? / Marcus? / yourself?).