On 28 June 2015 at 16:34, Sven Panne <[email protected]> wrote: > 2015-06-28 12:03 GMT+02:00 Boespflug, Mathieu <[email protected]>: >> >> why does the proposal *not* include normalization? [...] > > > I think this is intentional, because otherwise we are in the IO monad for > basically all operations. What's the normalized representation of > "foo/bar/../baz"?
Notice that the kind of normalization I'm talking about, specified in the link I provided, does not include this kind of normalization. Because it requires the IO monad to perform correctly, and only on real paths. Here is the link again: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/filepath-1.1.0.2/docs/System-FilePath-Posix.html#v:normalise Full canonicalization of paths, stripping out redundant ".." and whatnot, should certainly be done in a separate function, in IO. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
