On 03/06/2011 12:56 PM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
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.
What about extending the notion of 'device' (see other post) to cover 'http://'
and "ftp://";?
Would it be complicated?
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
