On 26 May 2012 16:55, David T. Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:44:15AM +0200, Camillo Bruni wrote: >> >> On 2012-05-26, at 06:41, David T. Lewis wrote: >> >> > What is a "working directory"? And for that matter, what is a "directory"? >> > These are concepts and metaphors that have been used in various ways by >> > some (but not all) operating systems, and that do not automatically have >> > a well defined meaning independent of those metaphors and operating >> > systems. >> > There is really no such thing as "current working directory" in >> > Squeak/Pharo, >> > so if you want to create such a concept you are free to do so in any way >> > you please. >> >> well on all unix there is a very clear precise definition of it "getcwd()"! >> and on all decent platforms there's a more or less clear notion of >> what is a file and what is a directory? >> >> Talking about Pharo, which platforms do we target? >> - Linux >> - OS X >> - Win > > You're right about that of course. > > I guess I just like to remind people that unix is not the only good > operating system that has ever been invented, and that ideas like "files" > are just part of a metaphor that was invented decades ago to help people > relate their computer to something they already understood (a physical > desk with a desktop and with file cabinets filled with folders that > contained paper documents). > > With cell phones, tablets, and solid state storage it is quite possible > that the ancient "desk with file cabinet" metaphors will become obsolete, > so it is good to keep an open mind. >
I can hardly see what else can replace a tree/graph-like data organization. >> >> maybe I am wrong, but I think we could assume a common denominator here? >> (Using python and ruby yields to the same results AFAIK) > > I don't know. But OS X may well be an example of an environment that > presents a file system view to the user that is different from the file > system view at the unix file system or unix shell level. And Windows 7 > appears to be trying to imitate OS X in that regard. If you implement > a concept of "current working directory" in the image, you are free to > define it in whatever way makes good sense. But there is no fundamental > reason why you need to use a definition that matches the unix file system > view (as reported by OSProcess). You might instead prefer to use a > definition that matches what the OS X user expects to see in the finder, > and maybe that is a different thing (I am not an OS X user, so apologies > if I am getting this wrong). > the 'working directory' concept matters for consoles & console-based shells. So, of course it is beneficial to have same behavior/definition of working directory as in shell. For those who using different graphical-rich file system "shells" like 'finder' on os-x or 'explorer' on windows, this concept means nothing, as well as things like stdin/stdout/pipes and many other. So why we need to worry about it? > Dave -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
