On 22-Apr-07, at 3:35 PM, Theodore H. Smith wrote: >> First, aliases can be stored as strings, just like relative paths. > > Strings are strings. So there's no interconversion necessary. > >> Second, aliases can be made relative, just like relative paths. > > Relative paths are relative... > >> Third, this all depends on the platform. > > Unlike relative paths which don't.
Relative paths only work as long as the root remains constant. Change that they break (try Windows shortcuts which break all the time if you move anything) Relative paths break or the same reason Aliases don't >> For Mac OS, you can >> frequently move an alias from one disk to another, and it will still >> work. > > And Win32, Linux? > > And "Frequently" for me is "never". I can't remember one time where > an alias worked when I copied it from one disk to another. It always > asked me to refer to the original on another disk, when there was a > perfectly good copy locally! Win32 and Linux have nothing akin to Mac aliases hence you do the best you can there. This may be a relative path or full path. But using such a thing on OS X is simply ignoring the things that work best >> And, fourth, for the suggested example of storing recently- >> opened documents which you ignored, relative paths don't make sense. > > Alright, recent documents could use aliases. Would be handy when the > user moves his document around. > > Most stuff I come across however, relative paths are better. > > Relative paths are for more misson critical stuff, like for source > code. They're no more "mission critical" than aliases or absolute paths are Use the right locator technology non each platform. Aliases work wonderfully. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
