[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE (Version 2)
- To: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Issue: PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE (Version 2)
- From: email@example.com (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 07:44:49 MST
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Wed, 22 Mar 89 23:30 EST
[removed x3j13; added cl-cleanup]
I don't really like any of these proposals.
Proposal CANONICALIZE is broken because it doesn't provide any way to
specify that a pathname component should be in *exactly* the case you
provide (including all upper or all lower) on file systems that
support mixed case.
Proposals NEW-COMMON-ACCESSORS and NEW-LOCAL-ACCESSORS add too many
functions to the language.
Proposal KEYWORD-ARGUMENT is the least objectionable of the bunch, but
I still don't like it. I still claim that there is no portable way to
use MAKE-PATHNAME (even if the problems with case are involved),
because there are other problems with things like the lengths of
strings and what characters are valid in the various pathname fields
on different file systems.