[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PATHNAME-CANONICAL-TYPE (Version 1)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Issue: PATHNAME-CANONICAL-TYPE (Version 1)
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 15:30 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <8807221704.AA02415@cdr.utah.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 13:25 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 11:04:45 MDT
From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
Under the "Current Practice" section, you might add ...
(defvar *binary-file-type* ...)
Good point. You're not the only one.
Looks like a good argument for standardization, since I think some
of these are wrong, and it would probably take half a week to test
Just to clarify, I think Moon meant (he can correct me if I'm wrong)
that this is an argument for canonical types, not an argument for
a *binary-file-type* variable, since the same implementation may have
to talk to multiple file systems, and since different extensions may
be used in different file systems, and hence a single extension may
not be appropriate for every file system.