Re: rename missing in Text_IO

[charleshixson@earthling.net (Charles Hixson)]

dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) wrote in
<9cvdav$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>: 

>On 4 May 2001 18:38:04 -0500, Larry Kilgallen
><Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote: 
>> Unlike Delete, the legality of Rename is going to vary from
>> operating system to operating system.  If you rename into a
>> different directory on VMS, that directory must be on the
>> same physical disk.  With rooted directories, begin on the
>> same disk is not obvious by comparing the old and new
>> filespecs. 
>
>This is true on Unix too. 
>

I thought that the *nix rename command was mv ... if so, then it 
will move between disks, and I think it just renames within the 
same disk (it's been years since I looked into the details, but 
that's the way that I remember).  Of course, that's at the 
command level.  I suppose that there are system calls 
implemented at a lower level, but what's wrong with making a 
move/rename command available in a Ada.File.Stdoperations 
package in Annex F as a defined part of the standard.  It 
probably shouldn't be mandatory, but there's no particular 
reason not to define "the standard approach", and let those 
implement it who will.

Actually, I feel that most of the truly standard library 
functions should be defined as a part of the standard.  The 
fragmentation that Eiffel has experienced due to incompatible 
libraries between differnet versions is a large part of this 
reason.  The strengthening that C++ has received from the 
standard template library is another part.  (I don't use C++, 
but I certainly hear about it... and the STL has been receiving 
plaudits as an enabler, even from those who don't like some 
feature or other of it.)

It's not as if most of the work hasn't already been done.  There 
are lists in several forms, and red-black trees, and B-Trees, 
and... well, lots.  Most of the truely basic structures.  
Perhaps the problem is that they've all been done by different 
people, or that the Booch components seem to be all that's 
needed or ..., whatever.  

I'm not used to the Booch components, so perhaps they are all 
that's needed.  But if so then I think that they ought to be 
specified at least to the API level as a part of the standard.  
Personally, when I looked at them, I couldn't see how to get 
back an element after I had stored it in a container.  But I'm 
sure that there must be a way, and if that's the best structure 
design, then that's what it is.


-- 
Charles Hixson

Copy software legally, the GNU way!
Use GNU software, and legally make and share copies of software.
See http://www.gnu.org
    http://www.redhat.com
    http://www.linux-mandrake.com
    http://www.calderasystems.com/
    http://www.linuxapps.com/