Re: path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- From: Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:40:03 +0000 (UTC)
On 2008-09-08, Kenny <kentilton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...pathname-pathname? Talk about a stutter. Paging Major Major.
I can't find a PATH-PATHNAME in the CLHS. Where did you find this?
There is a PATHNAME-NAME accessor for the PATHNAME class, to get the
name component; is that what you are thinking of?
A better name for this slot would be BASENAME (borrowing from Unix).
But you see, the whole class should just have been called PATH. NAME is
redundant in PATHNAME. A PATH is generally understood to designate (something
akin to name) a location. See, this makes sense. You have a path, which has
a name. (As well as a directory, type, and other attributes).
And what was wrong with pathname-sans-filename? Too accurate and easy
What's wrong with PATHNAME-DIRECTORY?
Note that the basename might not be a file, so ``sans-filename'' is inaccurate.
to remember? Or have the English still not gotten over all those wars
with France?
Gotten over? Are you saying they lost some?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- From: Kenny
- Re: path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- References:
- path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- From: Kenny
- path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- Prev by Date: Re: What is expensive about consing
- Next by Date: Re: What is expensive about consing
- Previous by thread: Re: path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- Next by thread: Re: path-pathname? too embarrassed to call it...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|