Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] another point regarding FILE_SET

[Eric B. <er...@go...>]

Sven Ehrke wrote:
> 
> That's right. But I would prefer to have KL_DIRECTORY.filenames
> as it is now rather than having a `filename' which tries to handle all possible
> cases (maybe including the ** notation as well). This would either
> make `filenames' really complex or result in many more features
> in KL_DIRECTORY.

I was not suggesting having a more complex `filenames' routine.
I was just saying that `filenames' is in the same category of
routines as the one we are talking about, so apart from other
considerations explained in previous messages, I don't see
why we should have one and not the other.

> The way it is now it provides the base for extended
> functionality which can be built outside.

Likewise if `filenames' was not implemented in KL_DIRECTORY.

Don't get me wrong. In practice we will end up keeping
`filenames' in KL_DIRECTORY and having the new functionality
in an external class in another library. But in theory I
don't see any difference between the two routines in 
terms of functionality and therefore (still in theory)
they should be either both in KL_DIRECTORY or both outside
in a common external class.
 
> Maybe we could call it 'io' to be symmetrical with the kernel?

Yes, good idea.

-- 
Eric Bezault
mailto:er...@go...
http://www.gobosoft.com