RE: [boost] boost/filesystem/directory.hpp is_file()

From: Keith Burton (kb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-21 02:51:00

There is a requirement for is_file() if there are any 'things' visible
in the filesystem ( e.g. returned by directory iterators ) where
is_directory() is false but other xxxx_file functions would not work
correctly.   Sockets and printers have already been mentioned as
possibilities.

Keith Burton

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-admin_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-admin_at_[hidden]]
On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
Sent: 21 March 2002 00:20
To: boost_at_[hidden]; boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [boost] boost/filesystem/directory.hpp is_file()

At 05:14 PM 3/20/2002, Jeff Garland wrote:

 >Somewhere in this thread you were asking if is_file is really needed
and  >that you were mostly using !is_directory().  I don't see a problem
with  >eliminating is_file().  It is redundant and if you think it will
cause  >confusion then I would kill it.  More generically, I suppose,
the issue
 >is whether the thing is a 'composite/container' or a 'leaf'.   So you
 >could go with something like is_leaf() or is_container() but this just
>seems more obscure than is_directory() to me.

Agreed.  I've never had any concern over is_directory().  But the more I

think about is_file(), the more I think Peter was right to question it. 
Thanks for the confirmation.

Unless someone posts a strong counter argument, I'm going to kill 
is_file().

--Beman 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost