On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 18:26:42 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/7/13 2:10 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2013 at 17:27:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/7/13 1:04 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
I think using string as the main form of representation for
a path is
fine.
However, there are times where it is convenient to be able
to explode a
path into a structure, where each part is clearly separate
from the
next.
Tuple!(
string, "drive",
string[], "folders",
string, "basename",
string, "extension"
)
parsePath(string path);
string buildPath(string drive, string[] folders, string
basename,
string extension);
Andrei
Yeah. That's pretty much more or less what I was describing.
Except
"buildPath" would take your (unnamed) tuple type directly.
No, the version I wrote is more flexible. You get to pass
separate arguments to it or just pass a tuple with .expand.
buildPath(parsePath("/bin/sh").expand)
should rebuild "/bin/sh".
There'd be also be a "filename" member/ufcs function in there
for
convenience.
I think that would be a small, but useful, addition to
std.path.
Me 2.
Andrei
An overload for buildPath that took the tuple directly would be
good. Typing expand all the time would get tiresome if you were
doing lots of this.
