On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:35 PM, Peter Bex wrote: > > Finally, a flag would also need to go everywhere a path is accessed > (including file-open, directory, directory?, call-with-input-file, etc...) > unless you make it a parameter (which would be slower, if I'm not > mistaken).
Oops, I see you already mentioned the parameter possibility. Sure, it would be slower in theory, but looking at the code for e.g. open-input-file I doubt you would even notice. And looking at something like with-input-from-file, which calls apply, fluid-let, call-with-values, values, and apply again, you will certainly not notice the difference in that case. I think it would unusual to specify this flag on a per-call basis; more typically it would be once at toplevel, so you're not really incurring a per-call penalty to set the parameter, just a small penalty to read the parameter in the procedure. In a case where you normally don't want expansion but occasionally do, you can call expand-path directly, so I would argue for an expand-path procedure + expand-pathnames parameter. That said, even if you go the parameter way, you probably need a backwards-compatibility module anyway. Jim _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
