Re: [AD] al_path_set_extension

[Peter Wang <novalazy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2009-02-13, Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On February 13, 2009, Trent Gamblin wrote:
> > On Fri, February 13, 2009 6:00 pm, Peter Wang said:
> > > One way to resolve this is to define an extension to include the dot as
> > > well.  Then:
> > >
> > >     al_path_set_extension("abc", ".ext")     ==> "abc.ext"
> > >     al_path_set_extension("abc.ext", ".def") ==> "abc.def"
> > >     al_path_set_extension("abc.def", "")     ==> "abc"
> > >
> > > Then al_path_set_extension could be used to remove the extension.  Also
> > > the first call doesn't magically grow a dot character out of nowhere.
> > > al_path_get_extension would return the leading dot.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Better than the current behaviour.
> 
> So long as it makes sense, I don't much care.
> 

Further path questions:

1. Is it important to allow NULL drive and filename components?  Is
there any difference between a NULL drive/filename and a drive/filename
which is an empty string?  It is easier for the implementation if we
don't use NULLs internally.

2. Can I change al_path_get_extension and al_path_get_basename to return
pointers to internally allocated memory, instead of filling a buffer
provided by the user?  This is consistent with al_path_get_drive,
al_path_get_index, al_path_get_filename, and easier to use.  It's only a
little bit of extra memory to copy the basename from the filename when
the user calls al_path_get_basename.

3. Similarly for al_path_to_string.

Peter