On the scope of 'directory' (and which issue tracker to use)
Looking at the current API, it seems that the 'directory' library has been extended to more than just mere directory-related operations: it includes several file-related utilities as well. It looks to me that 'directory' has become a place for consolidating filesystem-related operations for *nix and Windows platforms. Given the state of things, would it be more appropriate to call it a "platform-agnostic library for filesystem operations" rather than a "library for directory manipulation"? (Of course, the name of the library and its modules would remain slightly misleading but oh well.) On an unrelated issue, seeing as most of the issues are on GitHub rather than Trac (and I personally find the former simpler to use) perhaps the .cabal file should point to the GitHub issue tracker instead? -- Phil
Pointing the issue tracker to the correct place makes a lot of sense. Same
with changing the description.
-Edward
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Phil Ruffwind
Looking at the current API, it seems that the 'directory' library has been extended to more than just mere directory-related operations: it includes several file-related utilities as well. It looks to me that 'directory' has become a place for consolidating filesystem-related operations for *nix and Windows platforms.
Given the state of things, would it be more appropriate to call it a "platform-agnostic library for filesystem operations" rather than a "library for directory manipulation"? (Of course, the name of the library and its modules would remain slightly misleading but oh well.)
On an unrelated issue, seeing as most of the issues are on GitHub rather than Trac (and I personally find the former simpler to use) perhaps the .cabal file should point to the GitHub issue tracker instead?
-- Phil
participants (2)
-
Edward Kmett -
Phil Ruffwind