Hi Stef,

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:33:56PM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi alistair
>
> We should target Pharo 70.

Yep, I saw Esteban's message saying he hopes 6.0 is only a week away, so
this can definitely wait.


> Now it is great that you help improving the file frameworks.
> Could you open a bug entry?

Yep, I was just waiting to see if there was lots of resistance to these
changes (which there doesn't seem to be).


> Do you have tests?

I was working on them when this email arrived. :-)

I expect it will take me a week to get them to the point I'm happy (this
is a part time hobby), but they'll definitely be part of the slice /
pull request when I submit it.

Cheers,
Alistair

>
> Stef
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I previously suggested a change to Path>>/ which actually covered two
> > issues:
> >
> > 1. The handling of the parent directory notation, i.e. ".."
> > 2. The construction of path segments when appending a string.
> >
> > As Damien pointed out, the first issue needs a bit more consideration.
> >
> > I think the second point is still problematic and can be addressed
> > separately.�� In particular:
> >
> > ('/a/b/c' asFileReference / 'd/e/f') parent�� "File @ /a/b/c"
> >
> > I would expect the result to be "File @ /a/b/c/d/e"
> >
> > The fix is straightforward (although someone may be able to propose a
> > more elgant solution):
> >
> > --
> > / aString
> >�� �� �� �� ��| path additionalPath index |
> >
> >�� �� �� �� ��aString isEmptyOrNil
> >�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��ifTrue: [ Error signal: 'Path element cannot be empty or
> > nil'].
> >
> >�� �� �� �� ��additionalPath := Path from: aString.
> >�� �� �� �� ��path := self class new: self size + additionalPath size.
> >�� �� �� �� ��path copyFrom: self.
> >�� �� �� �� ��index := self size + 1.
> >�� �� �� �� ��additionalPath do: [ :each |
> >�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��path at: index put: each.
> >�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��index := index + 1.
> >�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��].
> >�� �� �� �� ��^ path
> > --
> >
> > 1. Do you agree with the proposed change?
> > 2. (Assuming you agree): Should we target Pharo 6.0 or 7.0?
> >�� �� On one side, this is clearly a bug, on the other, no one has reported
> >�� �� it to date, so it isn't having a big impact.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alistair
> >
> >