On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Brian Goslinga <brian.gosli...@gmail.com>wrote:
> There is a trade off here. If you want to be very portable you'll end up > with something like the CL path API because you need logicals and file > revisions to really support VMS, for example. > In a former life I spent more time than I now care to dwell on in battling the CL pathname API, both as an implementor (SBCL) and a user (I was the original author of the ASDF build system). While I can accept that a portable pathname system would need to provide support for e.g. logicals and file revisions, I still claim that CL is in this respect an extraordinarily rich source of information on how not to do it. "Customary case", in particular, still makes me want to scream even ten years later /rant off -dan -- d...@telent.net http://ww.telent.net -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
