[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: portability of pathnames
- Subject: Re: portability of pathnames
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Stanley Shebs)
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 12:16:11 MDT
- Apparently-to: email@example.com
- Newsgroups: fa.common-lisp
- Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
- References: <860623211400.6.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Reply-to: shebs@utah-orion.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
In article <860623211400.6.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (David A. Moon) writes:
>Get your hands on a Symbolics document set and read about Logical
>Pathnames. If I understand your requirements, Logical Pathnames are
>exactly what you're looking for.
Logical pathnames are good in that they can be machine-independent.
However, it seemed to me that they amounted to building a mini-filesystem
within Common Lisp, and we have enough problems compromising on a basic
language without trying to standardize on the operating system too!