On Sunday 06 March 2011 13:49:59 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public@kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> wrote in message > news:il09fp$2h5d$1...@digitalmars.com... > > > On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 15:54:19 +0100, spir wrote: > >> What about extending the notion of 'device' (see other post) to cover > >> 'http://' and "ftp://";? > >> Would it be complicated? > > > > I don't think std.path should handle general URIs. It should only have > > to deal with the kind of paths you can pass to the functions in std.file > > and std.stdio. > > If std.path doesn't handle uri's, then we'd need a whole other set of > functions for dealing with uris. And at least a few of the functions would > overlap. And then people who want to be able to handle both files and uris > will want functions that will seamlessly handle either. So I think it > really would be best to just bite the bullet and have std.path handle > uri's. > > That said, I'm not sure this would be necessary for round 1 of the new > std.path. Could just be added later.
We do have std.uri, though it's pretty bare-boned at the moment. - Jonathan M Davis
