Subject: Re: Question on the role of :absolute and :relative directories and logical pathnames From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 17:37:59 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3197727478989642@naggum.net> * Martin ``rydis'' Rydstr|m <rydis@cd.chalmers.se> > If I understood them correctly, :absolute means "absolute relative to the > base of the translation for the logical host", whereas :relative could vary > with working directories and so on. Yes, it could, but it has nothing to with that.. :absolute or :relative _only_ affect which translation rule applies. Any meaning you might think of is relative to the value of logical-pathname-translations for the relevant host, not an absolute. > PVE> I think that foo:;bar;source.lisp and foo:bar;source.lisp have a > PVE> different meaning, and that the second can legally be translated (on > PVE> some unix machine) to /bar/source.lisp. Irrespective of where the > PVE> logical pathname foo points to. > > No, I don't think it could. Or, well, maybe it /could/, but that'd be a > rather extreme reading of a vague spec. (Based on what I have been able > to glance from the HyperSpec.) > > You define the translation, both for relative and absolute logical > pathnames, and I see very little point in having the implementation not > care about the translation for the "absolute translation". Well, actually, in a pathological translation rule, you _might_ get that result, but then it would be intended by the programmer. > Logical pathnames seem very interesting, but every time I try to really > understand, I get either very confused or very disappointed. The problem is probably that you don't view them sufficiently abstractly but want to _do_ stuff with them. This generally fails. They are like URLs: don't say squat about anything specific, but are just "locators" and depend entirely on the translations for their meaning. #:Erik -- I found no peace in solitude. I found no chaos in catastrophe. -- :wumpscut: