[Ecls-list] Conformity and convenience problems with pathnames
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com
Sun Nov 21 22:26:26 UTC 2010
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon <
pjb at informatimago.com> wrote:
> It is well known that implementations of CL pathnames have been greatly
> implementation dependant. However, the standard still specifies clear
> behavior for logical pathnames, for one thing, and for the other, since
> there are several implementations working on the same POSIX systems
> (unix including linux and MacOSX; and MS-Windows), it is desirable that
> all implementations converge in their handling of pathnames on these
I totally agree on this.
> Personnaly, I resolved to use logical pathnames and logical-pathname
> translations as much as possible, and to use make-pathname to build
> portably physical pathnames.
I believe this is a wise choice, though it is not so well accepted in other
forums (asdf) due to name clashing and lack of standardized support in most
However, most implementations have problems dealing with these two
> aspects. To improve the situation, I wrote a little script to check
> the behavior of implementations in these two aspects.
Thanks a lot. It will be very useful
> Since I'm sending a similar message to most implementation lists, it
> might be better, if there is any need for 'language lawyer' discussions,
> to direct them to news:comp.lang.lisp.
There is an implementors mailing list and a cl-pro mailing list. I believe
those are better places to discuss it.
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ecl-devel