"Henderson, Michael D" <michael.d.henderson@lmco.com> writes:
> Completely off topic, but what's the trade-off between absolute and
> relative paths? Is it extra calls to stat() or are '.' and '..' just
> faster because they're stored at the beginning of the directory entry?
Not sure what the performance trade-off is (though, in the Windows
case, it's more about correctness than performance). My reasons are
based purely on code simplicity. It bothers me to constantly have to
special-case empty paths (which mean "the current working directory")
and to have to fuss with the likes of "." and ".." at all. It bothers
me that we have this artificial restraint against working on the
parent directory of the current working directory because there's no
more path to lop off. In fact, it bothers me that Subversion gives a
rip about the current working directory at all -- I much prefer the
TortoiseSVN approach, where CWD is a useless notion and all paths are
absolute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 28 00:28:04 2004