Re: [jamboost] os.path module

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-18 07:30:48

Everything below agreed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] os.path module

> 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
>
> - Volodya
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> jamboost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>