Make File_bindings.Expanded.t type more precise#2041
Conversation
The dst is a local path, so it should be reflected as such Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
1cc9448 to
f3990eb
Compare
|
I have to say that I don't like that
(and The doc comment supports the first meaning, but in this feature you're using the second. The API is of split mind about this too: In support of meaning (1): In support of meaning (2): My personal opinion is that |
|
Yeah, indeed it's a bit confusing. But note that in this case, the relative path returned by the File_binding.t is not allowed to escape root. So the use case is valid. I support the introduction of |
|
Allowing to escape or not is not a difference I have in mind. I would expect neither local path nor relative (when used relative to local) to be able to escape the root. |
|
I see. Would it make sense to change the path module to be something like: |
|
Yeah, sounds like a reasonable start. (it might equally make sense to have separate type for In_build_dir and In_source too, but one thing at a time) |
|
Looking at this again, it seems like (1) is essentially equivalent to So I think it would be better to have something like this: |
|
Sounds reasonable to me! |
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <rudi.grinberg@gmail.com>
The dst is a local path, so it should be reflected as such
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg rudi.grinberg@gmail.com