I thought it was proposed as a complete replacement of the existing file 
handling stuff.  The URI idea isn't bad, but how would that work?  Seems 
kind of redundant to have to type "file://" all the time to a class that 
only handles files.

>From: Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Alternative directory/file classes?
>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:05:34 +0100
>
>On Mar 12, 2007, at 11:56 , Michael Davies wrote:
>
>>>Rio is quite a nice name in itself, I quite like it. I am open to
>>>alternative suggestions, anyone?
>>
>>Keep the name, just change the expansion - "Refactored" rather than  
>>"Ruby"!
>
>Well, I wouldn't call it a refactoring - it's not meant to replace  the 
>"real" directory classes, is it? At least in Ruby it's just a  convenience 
>wrapper.
>
>Now, I certainly wish for more sensible directory handling, and if I  had 
>my say it would be based on URIs.
>
>- Bert -
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. 
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE