Don Green wrote at 05/12/2012 12:44 PM:
Maybe I need to understand why Racket is using the path form instead of the string form. (Can you explain briefly why the string data type was not sufficient so the path data type was developed.
I suspect that "path" abstraction was created a means for manipulating file pathnames in a way that is cross-platform and also less prone to error than using strings.
What I do in my code is to have my procedures accept both file pathnames in both "path" and string form, and to produce file pathnames as "path"s. This just works, and is the idiomatic way to do it. It also means that you have to use "path->string" sometimes, such as if you are writing pathnames to text files, but that has seemed an OK burden to me.
The main situation in which I would reconsider is if I were implementing something like a filesystem in Racket, and I wanted to double-check the performance. I'd still see an advantage to "path", for correctness/robustness.
-- http://www.neilvandyke.org/ ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
