From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-10-31T04:11:40+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] win32-file 0.1.0

On Thursday 30 October 2003 09:59 am, Christoph wrote:
> Berger, Daniel wrote:
> ...
>
> > #
> > # > > Synopsis
> > # > > ========
> > # > > require "win32/file"
> > # > >
> > # > > some_file = "C:\\Documents and
> > # > Settings\\some_user\\fruitylicious.txt"
> > # > >
> > # > > Win32::File.attributes(some_file) # e.g.
> > ['hidden','archive'] # > # > Why not use symbols instead?
> > #
> > # Dunno - didn't think it really mattered.  Does it?
> > #
> >
> > Personally, I generally dislike the symbol-as-hash key
> > style--even if there is some kind of performance gain to be
> > had from it.  So, you've got my vote to keep it as it is. :)
>
> Just throwing in a curve ball on this frivolous matter, but
> I strongly prefer the symbol style over strings. In fact, it
> always bucket me that the reflection methods like
> Module#instance_methods or Object#instance_variables
> return arrays of strings instead of symbols.
>
> Ps. Thank you very much for all win32 extension -
> they are really fantastic! Also what kind of nfts (5+)
> features will your win32/file extension support?

Actually, shouldn't these be constants of the File class?

Something like this maybe:

Win32::File.attributes(some_file) -> {File::HIDDEN => true, File::ARCHIVE => 
true}

	Sean O'Dell