Re: Fileutils

Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:
> How about a simpler list of 'user requirements' Norm?
> mkdir

I got that one.

> touch (create empty file)

Ok. I also proposed a 'create temporary file' step in a follup-up message.

> delete (file|directories [recurse])
> copy (file|directory [recurse])
> mv (file|directory)

I go the file ones. I suppose the directory options make sense.

> Retrieve value of a system property

That's not a 'fileutil', but it makes sense (at least for Java impl.).

> Retrieve list of file properties (R|W|X....)

That's what all the is-readable/is-writable etc. steps do. But I think
Mohamed is right, better to have a single step for them all. Like my
own uri-info step.

> (I've never used 'is readable|writable|exists - but I can see it being useful)
> (rename? I'd prefer move)

The file properties step gives you (a superset?) of what those steps
return, doesn't it?

>> Q: Should "file" be made absolute wrt to the current base URI, or left
>> unchanged (effectively making it relative to the implementations
>> notion of current working directory)?
>
> Any use made of PATH variable?

No. We're not talking about executables (in general).

> Treat as per current OS, i.e. could be relative or absolute?

It can always be absolute, the question is what to do if the author
puts in a relative name.

> Using base URI would make it 'odd' wrt other file utils?

Odd wrt command line file utils, but *not* doing it is odd wrt other
XProc steps.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Sometimes in life situations develop
http://nwalsh.com/            | that only the half-crazy can get out
                              | of.--La Rochefoucauld