Re: [jamboost] os.path module

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 11:42:36

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:38 AM
Subject: [jamboost] os.path module

>
> This is a minor technical question, but we'd need to agree on it, as
pathes
> are everywhere. Would it be OK if we just represents pathes everywhere as
a
> list of tokens, with "." denoting special case of empty path.

If by lists of paths, you mean:

path = foo bar baz ; # => foo/bar/baz

Then no, I can't agree. It's too limiting because you often need several
paths in a single list:

paths = foo/bar baz/mumble ;

> Would it be OK
> if we assume that pathes are always "simplified" and work with them only
> using rules in os.path?

That was my intention, depending on your meaning of "simplified".

-Dave