On 11 Jun 2011, at 18:47, Nikodemus Siivola wrote: > On 11 June 2011 19:41, Pascal Costanza <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just the one in faslcache. If I ask for that particular file directly >> (foo:bar;quux.fasl), it will only find the first one and cannot find the >> second one, so directory returning the second one is misleading. > > I have to say that I don't particularly disagree -- but that would be > have been a more radical change than just fixing the bug in > pathname-intersection: something to think about a bit more first.
Just to stress this again: I think directory returning the second name is not only misleading, but also incorrect with regard to what the HyperSpec says. The HyperSpec says that directory "[d]etermines which, if any, files that are present in the file system have names matching pathspec". The second file doesn't have a name that matches the given path. Directory should do something that is equivalent to translate-logical-pathname, it seems to me, because that is what determines the semantics of logical pathname translations and makes such pathnames unambiguous. (cf. also the non-commutativity of pathname-match-p) Pascal -- Pascal Costanza The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
