Re: What about a glob standard method in Ada.Command_Line ?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

On 9/2/10 9:08 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>> 2. do with the names what I want after they have been read:
>
> Why is such a Matcher routine necessary?

Not really, my overloaded subp was a quick attempt at removing
implementation-defined and replacing it with something
that allows all kinds of control over the results, i.e. the
next file name is good or not. The callback should just place
the file name testing loop inside (Start_)Search, as a way to keep
the directory searching loop free from the matching stuff
(like Pattern, only with more power).

OTOH, much of my argument in favor of full power String matching
is based on the (presumed) fact that file system names are
basically like vegetables. There will be specks, some rotten,
and molds, as mentioned. But you still want to eat them, without
exception, when you are hungry and they represent the notion
of edible food.[*]  That leaves the question why having implementation-
defined stuff isn't called for anyway.
(Any I rarely hope for the bits returned by the files system routines
to always permit 1:1 mappings to Unicode character sequences in
whatever representation. )
  
File systems capable of optimizing directory scanning when they
know part or the file name add to an argument in favor of
implementation defined.

So for me, the heated discussion boils down to a callback
(or generic formal function) that might or might not express a
file name filter well---one nesting level less if you compare  it
to a loop with a filtering conditional in it.


Georg

[*] http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/molds_on_food/#2