From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-18 07:22:23
David Abrahams wrote:
> > 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 ;
I hasn't noticed that! Then, I guess we should stick to unix-style pathes?
> > 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".
The exact definition is not important, I think, as long as:
- there will be no two ways to describe a path
- current dir won't be represented by empty string
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk