On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 15:35 -0300, Jose Armando Garcia wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Jose Armando Garcia <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Em 12/06/2011, às 14:00, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad <[email protected]> >> > escreveu: >> > >> >> On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 13:36 -0300, Jose Armando Garcia wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 12:41 -0300, Jose Armando Garcia wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad >> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 11:39 -0300, Jose Armando Garcia wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> These functions are from the old std.path, and I haven't made any >> >>>>>> changes to them in my version. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> - toAbsolute() >> >>>>>> - toCanonical() >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In the comments where you say that it doesn't perform any IO you >> >>>>> should add these functions. >> >>>> >> >>>> Does getcwd() perform any IO on Windows? AFAIK, on POSIX it just >> >>>> queries /proc/self/cwd, which is a virtual file. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> The way I look at IO is anything that is external to the process. >> >>> Another way to thinking about it is that >> >>> toAbsolute()'s and toCanonical()'s result is dependent on state >> >>> outside of the process. While the rest of the templates/functions >> >>> aren't. >> >> >> >> The way I've interpreted the "no IO" principle of std.path is "no >> >> disk/network IO", since those would come with an enormous performance >> >> penalty as compared to in-memory operations. But maybe you are right. >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Speaking of which can we add a template >> >>>>> called normalize (maybe you can come up with a better name) that does >> >>>>> what canonical does but doesn't make it absolute. E.g.: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> version(windows) assert(normilize("dir/file") == "dir\\file"); >> >>>>> version(windows) assert(normilize("dir/./file") == "dir\\file"); >> >>>>> //etc >> >>>> >> >>>> That sounds like a good idea. Then I guess normalize("../foo") should >> >>>> just return "..\\foo", i.e. leave the ".." unresolved? >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> It is hard to resolve '..' without looking at the file system when >> >>> considering soft/sym link due to multiple parents. if 'somedir' is a >> >>> simlink "somedir/../" != ".". >> >> >> >> That is a matter of choice, I guess. In both bash and zsh, if I type >> >> >> >> cd some_dir/some_symlink/.. >> >> >> >> I end up in some_dir, regardless of where some_symlink is pointing. >> >> That is how toCanonical() does things as well, and how I think >> >> normalize() should work if I end up adding that. >> > >> > But most program dont behave this way. For example ls, less and vim don't >> > do >> > that. I am okay with resolving symlinks but just take note. >> >> Err. I am okay with resolving "..". > > I have thought some more about this, and I think I will simply remove > toCanonical() and replace it with normalize(). After all, > > auto canonicalPath = normalize(toAbsolute(path)); > > What do you think? > > -Lars >
The idea looks good to me but the naming seems off to me. I don't like toAbsolute. To me to...() methods imply conversion of type. Think 'toString', which takes some object and makes it a string. Or the template function 'to'... Maybe just 'absolute' is fine. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
