Guido van Rossum wrote: > [... horrors of cross-OS mounts and ":\/" separators ...] I agree, this has some very hairy sides to it. But VFS is really more about mounting non-FS things in a "root" FS (presumably the real one). > On the other hand the VFS concept could be used as a totally different > solution to the sys.importers vs. sys.path Heck, I'll be the "enfant terrible" once more: yes, and this stuff could well be implemented generically across scripting languages. Of course the act of "importing" is a very Pythonic issue - but FS/VFS traversal and the actual shared library load need not be. Anyway, enough of that. > Take for example the Windows registry -- looks a lot like a > filesystem, doesn't it? Yet it has one fundamental property that a > typical FS doesn't: directory nodes can have data *and* children... What you're saying is that dir = set-of-subdirs + set-of-files, and that this is a more general requirement than plain FS's. Doesn't that simply mean that the more general model is needed as basis to handle both? > Trees are a universal concept, but code sharing is still elusive... Ah, but think of the implications: archives, networks, XML, the world! -- Jean-Claude
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4