On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:42:01 -0800 Jesse Phillips <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not know of a good reason for having a Path type. However I do > believe much can be added to help with manipulated paths. Here are > some issues I've had. > > * Converting to the proper sep > * getBaseName(getName(file)) will give just the filename and no path > when there is no extension, switching the calls gives you nothing. > * A quoted path is sometimes valid, and some times not. Namely making > system calls needs the quotes or escaped spaces, while std.file > expects none of that. > * It should be easy to convert one OS path style to another. (Ignoring > drive letter) All of these features, together with ones already present in std.path, typically are what a type is meant for, I guess. Indeed, you can also have a bunch of free functions implicitely taking a string-meant-to-be-a-path as first argument; but functionally _and_ conceptually, it's the same thing. Or do I misinterpret? Then if i'm right, the debate falls down to a question of programming style preference, or what? One could argue that no notion at all requires a type (an explicite type). But code clarity is also a feature (that some dose of OO style often helps providing). Denis -- -- -- -- -- -- -- vit esse estrany ☣ spir.wikidot.com _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
