On Wed, Apr 5, 2000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Request for Comments on Split-Path Revision >------------------------------------------- > >Issue: Should split-path be changed? > >Discussion: > >Split-path currently returns the last element of a path, regardless of whether >it is a file or directory. That is: > >>> split-path %a/b/c >== [%a/b/ %c] > >>> split-path %a/b/c/ >== [%a/b/ %c/] > >This allows writing iterative code like: > >>> path: %/a/b/c/d >== %/a/b/c/d >>> while [path <> %/] [set [path file] split-path path print file] >d >c/ >b/ >a/ > >(Note, this example also shows another problem with split-path... in that it >has no regular iterative termination condition. If you provided a path of >%a/b/c/d this code would loop forever, because the path would reduce to %./ not >%/ ) > >However, you would normally think that a split path type of function would >separate the directory path from the file name itself. This would take %a/b/c/ >and return a directory path of %a/b/c/ and a file of none (not a file of %"", >which is a file with no name). However, you loose the iterative "peeling" >shown above. > >Since split-path has other issues that we will be fixing very soon, I would >like to get your comments on this issue soon. Do not consider legacy with >existing code base. It is better to correct this problem today, rather than >when the child is 20. Isn't this a good case for refinements? While, I'm not sure what the best default behavior should be, split-path/file and split-path/dir refinements seem like reasonable extensions to add. .:Eric Sneak a peek... http://www.smallandmighty.com/reblog/
