From: joel de guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-28 13:42:10
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" :
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joel de guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> > The name "path" is misleading. For example in the MacOS,
> > there are FSSpecs and paths which are different.
> The question is, are the set of operations similar enough that it makes
> sense to try to represent FSSpecs with the same cross-platform class as
> paths? If someone has a program written to manipulate paths on Unix will
> they be able to apply the same operations on MacOS 9? It might make sense to
> manipulate paths on the Mac with this class, since after all they do exist.
> I am an old Mac guy, but too old I guess: I've forgotten. BTW, does this
> apply to OS X?
I'll explain my suggestion again. Instead of manipulating native path types
which will work on platform X and not on platform Y, nor Z, I suggest
using a common, more formal and extensive path akin to URIs. The client
sees this and works on this. Behind the scenes, as needed, this is
converted to and/or from the underlying native format. The client does
not care about this. This "common-resource-identifier" should be rich
enough to describe any file-path format in existence as well extensible
enough to accomodate any future path formats. Such a formal resource
identifier will alleviate the multitude-of-formats problem.
I know this involves more work, but it is all worth the effort, IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk