From: Stewart, Robert (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-08 15:01:35
From: Jason Stewart [mailto:res0054p_at_[hidden]]
> At 02:04 PM 3/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> >From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> > >
> > > root_directory() just returns a "name" that represents the systems
> > > root "directory". Above you claim that you want this directory
> > > to "return" just '/', which indicates to me that '/' is the only
> > > entry in the "directory" returned from root_directory().
> This makes
> > > it a "logical/psuedo/whatever" directory in the same sense that
> > > a "root" directory in a DOS like system would be if we
> follow Beman's
> > > suggestion. I'm not claiming to agree with this, I'm
> just trying to
> > > follow the logic in the posting.
> >The problem is simply that there is no such thing as a
> 'root' directory (in
> >a portable world.) Under Windows, you can use
> \\192.168.0.1\sharename and
> >access the whole Internet if you like.
> I agree with this. Trying to make drives and UNC names appear like
> directories seems fraught with problems. How about the other
> Instead of a single root, you could introduce the concept of
> volumes and
> each volume has a root. On UNIX there would only be one
> volume. On Windows
> there would be, i.e., A:, C:, \\somecomputer\share, etc.
This is nice. "Volume" is the right abstraction for dealing with a
Perhaps we could go a step further and provide a collection of "system
resources." That would allow for all of the stuff in Windows' "Desktop" and
anything else that a platform might offer. The iterators for such a
collection could be adapted to filter out all but volumes, thus giving what
has been suggested previously (hierarchy_iterators).
Susquehanna International Group, LLP