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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,24a59fbc07128ff8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-08 15:03:54 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: rename missing in Text_IO From: charleshixson@earthling.net (Charles Hixson) References: <9cvdav$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu> Organization: Mandala Fluteworks Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/M3 Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:03:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.94.156.19 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 989359434 198.94.156.19 (Tue, 08 May 2001 15:03:54 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:03:54 PDT X-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:02:19 PDT (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7345 Date: 2001-05-08T22:03:54+00:00 List-Id: 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 > 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/