On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 09:37:15 +0100, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
> Looks good overall. I have a few comments and nitpicks though:
>
> > basename("dir/subdir/") --> "subdir"
> > directory("dir/subdir/") --> "dir"
>
> Is this what everybody expects? I'm not sure, but another possibility
> would be to treat these as if "dir/subdir/." is passed.
I don't know about everybody, but it is what *NIX users expect, at
least. I have written those functions so they adhere to the POSIX
requirements for the 'basename' and 'dirname' commands.
> What is the
> result of directory("/") or directory("d:/")?
"/" and "d:/", respectively. The first is what 'dirname' prints, and the
second is the natural extension to Windows paths. (I believe I have
covered most corner cases in the unittests. I think it would just be
confusing to add all of them to the documentation.)
> > extension("file") --> "" extension("file.ext")
> > --> "ext"
>
> What about "file."? I tried it on NTFS, but trailing '.' seems to always
> be cut off. Is it possible to create such a file on unix systems? If
> yes, you won't be able to recreate it from the result of basename() and
> extension().
Good point. I don't know if there is any kind of precedent here. What
do others think?
> What about network shares like "\\server\share\dir\file"? Maybe it
> should also be shown in the examples? Does the "\\server" part need
> special consideration?
Hmm.. that's another good point. I haven't even though of those, but
they should probably be covered as well. I'll look into it.
-Lars
