Re: Archive Module -revival

On 06/02/2014 21:39, Mike Sokolov wrote:
> I think the decision to discard the ordering of entries in a zip 
> archive could have other ramifications.  The format has an order. 
> People have relied on it. We have one example: by the law of the 
> internet there are lots more.  I think a zip access library should 
> preserve information that could reasonably matter, although maps 
> certainly do seem like a convenient alternative for when you don't 
> care.  I guess everybody seems to be agreeing at this point - just one 
> more vote. 
I certainly wasn't advocating dropping archive order. It was just the 
requirement that when using maps there would have to be some 'order' 
property that would have to be preserved in both input and output. 
Incidentally, assuming 'position' is a property in maps, when 
constructing an archive we'll have to handle the possibility of errors 
due to duplicated (or even non-contiguous) positions for entries.

-- 
*John Lumley* MA PhD CEng FIEE
john@saxonica.com <mailto:john@saxonica.com>
on behalf of Saxonica Ltd