Movatterモバイル変換

Re: portability of pathnames

• Subject: Re: portability of pathnames
• From:shebs%utah-orion@utah-cs.arpa (Stanley Shebs)
• Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 12:16:11 MDT
• Apparently-to:common-lisp@su-ai.arpa
• Distribution:
• Expires:
• Followup-to:
• Keywords:
• 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)
• Sender:
• Summary:

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-filesystemwithin Common Lisp, and we have enough problems compromising on a basiclanguage without trying to standardize on the operating system too!stan

• References:
  • Re: portability of pathnames
    • From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

• Prev by Date:Re: portability of pathnames
• Next by Date:Re: Argument Lists
• Previous by thread:Re: portability of pathnames
• Next by thread:Re: portability of pathnames
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread