PARSE-NAMESTRING return value.

From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: PARSE-NAMESTRING return value.
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <lw3dqaiq10.fsf@parades.rm.cnr.it>

Hi

I know I must have asked this many times before....

suppose I have set up a logical pathname translation like

(setf (logical-pathname-translations "XXX")
   `(("*.*" "/just/a/test/")))

What should the following return?

(type-of (parse-namestring "XXX:test.c"))

ACL, CMUCL and Harlequin return LOGICAL-PATHNAME.

The Hyperspec is not crystal clear in this respect.  It only says that
the string "is parsed as a logical pathname namstring"

Cheers

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
PARADES, Via San Pantaleo 66, I-00186 Rome, ITALY
tel. +39 - 06 68 10 03 17, fax. +39 - 06 68 80 79 26
http://www.parades.rm.cnr.it/~marcoxa

Re: PARSE-NAMESTRING return value. Christopher R. Barry
- Re: PARSE-NAMESTRING return value. Pierre R. Mai

From: Christopher R. Barry
Subject: Re: PARSE-NAMESTRING return value.
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <873dq93ish.fsf@2xtreme.net>

Marco Antoniotti <·······@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:

> Hi
> 
> I know I must have asked this many times before....
> 
> suppose I have set up a logical pathname translation like
> 
> (setf (logical-pathname-translations "XXX")
>    `(("*.*" "/just/a/test/")))
> 
> What should the following return?
> 
> (type-of (parse-namestring "XXX:test.c"))
> 
> ACL, CMUCL and Harlequin return LOGICAL-PATHNAME.

Then that's all you need to know. If you're looking to do non-trivial
pathname stuff 100% standard-guaranteed portably across all Lisps,
you'll go insane. All this stuff just isn't that well specified or
consistent across Lisps. (Though this specific thing might or might
not be, but I don't have time to go digging through looking for it or
to test.)

If you find something that works for you with logical-pathnames, then
stick with it and spend your time on more important problems; or spend
your time evaluating which problems are really the important ones if
you don't think you have more important problems. (Not meant in any
negative way; I personally used to spend more of my programming time
nitpicking at pedantic portability issues then actually getting useful
software written (and it took me a long time to figure this out,
sadly).)

Unless you are trying to write free software, you might consider
picking one Lisp and sticking to it.

Christopher

From: Pierre R. Mai
Subject: Re: PARSE-NAMESTRING return value.
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Message-ID: <871z5td33p.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>

······@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) writes:

> Unless you are trying to write free software, you might consider
> picking one Lisp and sticking to it.

Since Marco is the current maintainer both of ILISP and MK:DEFSYSTEM
(and probably other things as well) I rather think that his question
was related to his maintenance efforts of one or both of them.  Given
that, he can't really stick to one Lisp, as much as he'd like to do.

:-)

Regs, Pierre.

-- 
Pierre Mai <····@acm.org>         PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
  "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
   bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]