From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>
Date: 2005-08-30T06:39:03+09:00
Subject: Re: Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tanaka Akira [mailto:akr@m17n.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 10:48 AM
> To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
> Subject: Re: Pathname#walk for traversing path nodes (patch)
> 
> 
> In article <430C95ED.7060500@pobox.com>,
>   mathew <meta@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > I'd like to suggest "descend", because it's really 
> descending into the
> > path provided. The case where the path contains ".." is 
> exceptional; I 
> > imagine most real uses of the method won't be on ".." 
> paths. And even 
> > then, it's arguable that you're still descending into the 
> *path*, it's 
> > just that the path is relative and moves up the directory tree.
> 
> Now I think "descend" (and "ascend") is acceptable.  So they 
> are implemented.
> -- 
> Tanaka Akira

I can't remember - was it decided that the root directory should be
considered a separate element?  In other words will Pathname#ascend for
"/foo/bar" yield "/", "/foo", "/foo/bar" or just "/foo", "/foo/bar"?

Thanks.

Dan