[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path? |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:43:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:03:30AM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Ivan Raikov <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been meaning to port the Haskell FilePath library to
> > Chicken, because I find its API to be quite elegant and better
> > organized than the existing file name manipulation routines in
> > Chicken. This discussion has prompted me to create the filepath egg,
> > which is an almost verbatim transliteration of the Haskell code, with
> > a few Chicken-specific idioms here and there. I have included a flag
> > parameter, which can be used to enable "Posix" mode or "Windows"
> > mode for path name parsing and manipulation. The Windows mode supports
> > weird things like UNC names and is aware of the DOS reserved names
> > (CON, PRN, etc). I would appreciate it if people look at it, as I
> > would like to see some variant of this API supersede the existing
> > Chicken path manipulation stuff.
> >
>
> That library looks useful - nice port, Ivan.
>
> I would keep these things in extensions, though. There is already too much
> stuff in the core (I know I keep repeating this, but I'm really concerned
> about
> it).
I think Ivan is not suggesting _adding_ this to core, but rather
_replacing_ what we have in core with this. In total, this should
have the net effect of adding nothing (though I don't know how big
both libraries are).
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth
pgpfB6Q2AB0RP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Matthew Welland, 2008/10/25
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Elf, 2008/10/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Peter Bex, 2008/10/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Vincent Manis, 2008/10/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Ivan Raikov, 2008/10/29
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, felix winkelmann, 2008/10/29
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?,
Peter Bex <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, felix winkelmann, 2008/10/29
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Elf, 2008/10/29
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Ivan Raikov, 2008/10/29
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, felix winkelmann, 2008/10/30
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Alex Shinn, 2008/10/30
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, John Cowan, 2008/10/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Elf, 2008/10/28
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, John Cowan, 2008/10/28
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Elf, 2008/10/28
- Re: [Chicken-users] Bug in canonical-path?, Elf, 2008/10/28