> AFAIK, only Kawa and MIT provide pathnames as a built-in, though there > may be external packages that provide them on other systems. > MIT is essentially CL in semantics, whereas Kawa is mostly about URIs.
I wonder whether they're ready for standardization, then. On the other hand, I certainly do like having the ability to manipulate pathnames as something more than strings. > That they are basically the same thing, and that URLs are essentially > a mostly-upward-compatible extension. Distinct parsers are needed > because an URL is technically a valid Posix pathname, though a very > unlikely one. Perhaps, but one rarely uses them in the same context. It seems much less confusing to keep them separate. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
