On Apr 22, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Theodore H. Smith wrote: >> On 22-Apr-07, at 6:09 AM, Theodore H. Smith wrote: >> >>>> OK, its path time, again. >>>> >>>> I know that absolute paths are "evil" (Joe's trademark?). >>> >>> >>> So use relative paths instead :) Unix style. >>> >>> Relative paths, unlike aliases, work across downloads, copies, >>> disks. >>> >>> Let's say I copy some folders from one disk to another. Relative >>> paths still work. Aliases don't. >>> >>> Relative paths are clearly superior to aliases. And they can be >>> stored as strings, which is handy. >> >> Relative paths will be just as "bad" as absolute paths ever were for >> all the same reasons > > Except that they won't be as bad. > > And I've already stated reasons why they won't. Which you ignored. > > The email you replied to contained the disproof of the statement you > made.
First, aliases can be stored as strings, just like relative paths. Second, aliases can be made relative, just like relative paths. Third, this all depends on the platform. For Mac OS, you can frequently move an alias from one disk to another, and it will still work. And, fourth, for the suggested example of storing recently- opened documents which you ignored, relative paths don't make sense. Aliases, on the other hand, are perfectly suited to the task. Charles Yeomans _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
