Next in Review Queue: The New std.path

[Vladimir Panteleev]

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 00:26:15 +0300, Lars T. Kyllingstad  
<public at kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:42:50 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir at thecybershadow.net> wrote in message
>> news:op.vyny7zfetuzx1w at cybershadow.mshome.net...
>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:20:13 +0300, dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lars Kyllingstad's new and improved std.path module for Phobos is the
>>>> next item up in the review queue.
>>>
>>> Three notes:
>>> 1. No tests for extension("foo") is null && extension("foo.") !is null
>>
>> I don't know if you're talking about actual unittests or documentation,
>> but that brings up a good point: The behavior of extension("foo.")
>> should be clearly documented. (Unless it already is and I just
>> overlooked it?)
>
> So what you guys are saying is, basically, that it matters whether a
> function returns null or ""?  I'd be inclined to say it doesn't, and
> leave it undefined, but I'd be interested in hearing good arguments
> against this.

My main argument for this is that this is the *documented* behavior of  
getExt in the current version of std.path. But yes, the difference between  
"" and null is the same as the difference between "empty" and "absent".

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir at thecybershadow.net