From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5bcc293dc5642650
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.8.229 with SMTP id u5mr17699332pba.0.1318684963777;
        Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 d5ni11133pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories?
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:22:43 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <87r52emlss.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <9937871.172.1318575525468.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prib32>
	<418b8140-fafb-442f-b91c-e22cc47f8adb@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
	<xp2dsxe7fuo0.144jc7zraglb2$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<JL-dnRevK71EGwTT4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="n96eB342wiiRvV4hiJFm+Q";
	logging-data="8517"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IKbfAgqwg6A1oXK/ti5ze"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k35tDpUD6sP4O9aPw1gLNKdWHpw=
	sha1:Mx/qVItPiOVElhGjhNdv0BqcGaU=
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:13962
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2011-10-15T15:22:43+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu> writes on comp.lang.ada:
> It seems like you are expecting too much from the standard. If a
> standard program writes files with names that the standard understands
> then a standard program can read those files back and manipulate them
> via Ada.Directories. Yes?
>
> The problem arises when you try to ask a standard program to delve
> into system specific details such as reading arbitrary ("exotic") file
> names supported by the system. That doesn't work, but I wouldn't
> expect it to work so what's the problem?
>
> C avoids this complexity by just not including directory manipulation
> in the standard at all. Ada at least allows a standard program to
> manipulate directories containing files written by another standard
> program.
>
> I can understand that it might be nice to extend the standard to
> include proper support for Unicode file names and such. But I don't
> think the lack of that support can be interpreted as some kind of
> failure of the standard.

+1

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.