std.path review: second update

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1989.1312140117.14074.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Sunday 31 July 2011 14:24:30 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:06:58 +0000, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>> > Here's a new update based on your comments and requests.  [...]
>>
>> You may have noticed that I did not incorporate Steve's suggestion to
>> make the directory separator(s) a template parameter.  The reason is that
>> this is the *smallest* difference between paths on the different
>> platforms.  Drive letters and UNC paths are a much bigger difference, and
>> make interoperability near impossible.
>>
>> Therefore, I would just like to reiterate a suggestion I made on the
>> Phobos list a while ago, which was then shot down.  What if we put the
>> entire module inside a template, like this:
>>
>>     enum Platform { windows, posix }
>>     enum CaseSensitive { yes, no }
>>
>>     template Path(Platform platform, CaseSensitive caseSensitive)
>>     {
>>         /* Every function in the module goes inside this template,
>>            and instead of
>>
>>                version (Windows) { ... }
>>
>>            and so on, we use
>>
>>                static if (platform == Platform.windows) { ... }
>>
>>            That way, if people for some reason need to deal with
>>            POSIX paths on Windows, for instance, they can just write
>>
>>                Path!(Platform.posix).someFunction(myPath);
>>         */
>>     }
>>
>>     // Of course, we don't want to add a cumbersome prefix every time
>>     // we call a function for the current platform.  By mixing in the
>>     // template, std.path can be used *exactly* like now:
>>
>>     version (Windows)    private enum currentPlatform = Platform.windows;
>>     else version (Posix) private enum currentPlatform = Platform.posix;
>>
>>     mixin Path!(currentPlatform, platformDefaultCaseSensitivity);
>>
>> What do you think?

I like it.

>
> Honestly, it seems like overkill and overly messy.

Doesn't seem so bad to me.

> Doing something that
> drastic would have to add a lot of value IMHO, and I just don't see it. 
> And
> honestly, even if it _did_ add a lot of value, I think that I'd want a 
> cleaner
> solution to be found.
>

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a cleaner solution if one were found.