[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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-filesystem
within Common Lisp, and we have enough problems compromising on a basic
language 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