Is it a contingent fact about this system that we have an absolute pathname here, o have we somehow ended up with a function named foo-relative-pathname that returns absolute pathnames?
as far as i read it, 'relative' here refers to 'system' in the meaning: give me a pathname that is relative to this system.
Attila Lendvai wrote:
Is it a contingent fact about this system that we have an absolute pathname here, o have we somehow ended up with a function named foo-relative-pathname that returns absolute pathnames?
as far as i read it, 'relative' here refers to 'system' in the meaning: give me a pathname that is relative to this system.
So when the argument is the system itself, we get the absolute pathname, and for the components we get back a relative pathname. I suppose that's reasonable.
best, r
as far as i read it, 'relative' here refers to 'system' in the meaning: give me a pathname that is relative to this system.
Yes, this was the idea: "Make me a (absolute) pathname for X relative to system Y."
-- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter
Gary King wrote:
as far as i read it, 'relative' here refers to 'system' in the meaning: give me a pathname that is relative to this system.
Yes, this was the idea: "Make me a (absolute) pathname for X relative to system Y."
No, I don't /think/ that's right. When I call this function on a cl-source-file component, I get a relative pathname. When I call it on a system component, I get an absolute pathname. /Not/ scientifically tested!
r
-
Attila Lendvai -
Gary King -
Robert Goldman