Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-21 13:09:29

At 03:01 AM 3/21/2002, Dylan Nicholson wrote:

> --- Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I understand each of your points above; indeed my first cut looked a
>> like what you are describing. Here is why the header evolved:
>I do accept and see some benefit in the method you've chosen, but the
>"arbritrariness" of the names I guess is what worries me the most. It's
>much harder to think up long descriptive names that accurately capture
>intent. create_missing_directories probably stands out for that
>reason - what missing directories? And does it fail if there are
>no directories to create? etc.

I'm not so worried with create_directory/create_missing_directories as
remove/prune and copy.

Two names I can live with.

But with remove/prune, there end up being something like 7 names, and many
of those have several overloads. Minimum 13 signatures in all, and that
doesn't even cover a few of the behavior corner cases.

An alternative would be to have a single name ("remove") with four
signatures (unfiltered, filtered by name, filtered by regex, filtered by
Predicate). All would take an options argument, which would be a bitmask
type ( with the following entries (I haven't tried to pick names

    * OK if !exist(path) [otherwise throw if !exist(path)]
    * recurse into subdirectories [otherwise don't recurse]
    * error if !is_directory(path), or,
       error if !is_file(path),
       [otherwise can be either file or directory]
    * remove path itself if filter results in is_empty_directory(path)
       [otherwise filtered functions on dirs apply to contests only]

Dropping from 7 names to 1, and 13 signatures to 4 is certainly attractive.

Food for thought.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at