Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] add pathname-expand

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

Hi Felix,

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:05:27 +0200 (CEST) Felix <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Mario Domenech Goulart <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] add pathname-expand
> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:24:32 +0000
>> 
>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:06:43 +0200 (CEST) Felix <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:27:43 +0200 (CEST) Felix <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This patch adds "pathname-expand", a procedure I found in Gambit's
>>>>> library and which is quite useful. This does "~"-expansion and makes
>>>>> relative pathnames absolute either by merging the current-directory or
>>>>> a user-provided base directory.
>>>> 
>>>> Should pathname-expand replace the proposed `ep' procedure (#1001)?
>>>
>>> Yes, that was the intention.
>> 
>> One more question: shouldn't it go to files instead of utils?  The other
>> pathname- procedures are in files.
>> 
>
> files doesn't depend on the posix unit, so I thought to put it into utils, 
> since
> that unit is intended to contain higher-level functionality, and uses various
> other units.

I see.  Thanks.

I noticed your patch uses `user-information', that can be called
depending on the input format, but it doesn't check if it's running on a
windows system.  Isn't it going to "break" on windows?  I don't have a
windows box at hand right now, so I cannot test it, but it seems that
posixwin uses define-unimplemented to define user-information, which
will just make it raise an error.

Sorry for bringing this topic again, but with regard to
pathname-expand's behavior: you already said you are not for raising an
error in case no home can be determined.  OTOH, in the
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/chicken-hackers/2013-07/msg00009.html
thread at least Peter, Alan, Evan and Alaric think raising an exception
is the right thing to do (I think so).

Since people seem to disagree on that point, I think I should ask again
as an attempt to reach a consensus or to at least justify our decision,
even if it doesn't make everybody happy: should we go ahead and assume
"."  when no home can be determined instead of raising an exception?

Best wishes.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario