Re: Abstract FilePath Proposal

On 28 June 2015 at 16:34, Sven Panne wrote:

2015-06-28 12:03 GMT+02:00 Boespflug, Mathieu :

...

why does the proposal *not* include normalization? [...]

I think this is intentional, because otherwise we are in the IO monad for basically all operations. What's the normalized representation of "foo/bar/../baz"?

Notice that the kind of normalization I'm talking about, specified in the link I provided, does not include this kind of normalization. Because it requires the IO monad to perform correctly, and only on real paths. Here is the link again: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/filepath-1.1.0.2/docs/System-FilePath-Po... Full canonicalization of paths, stripping out redundant ".." and whatnot, should certainly be done in a separate function, in IO.