From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 13:25:24
At 09:56 AM 11/27/2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
>There has also been so consideration of providing has_xxx query
>which would express the above as:
>Pros: Expresses concept a bit more directly, may be implemented more
>efficiently than decomposition followed by empty().
>Con: Fattens the interface.
So far, on firm ground. And the has_xxx functions will be provided.
>If has_xxx query functions are provided, then there isn't really a need
>a separate absolute query, since foo.has_root() (or
>foo.has_root_directory(), for those who prefer your definition.)
But that isn't correct; has_root() is (a) actually named has_root_path(),
and (2) not the correct semantics, as it is true if either (rather than
both) system_specific_root() or root_directory() is not empty.
>Not having a function named absolute() might be safest, too, because it
>would force users to choose exactly the has_xxx function they wanted,
>rather than jumping to a conclusion about the semantics of absolute().
The name will be is_complete() and the semantics will be:
has_root_directory() // single rooted systems like POSIX
&& has_root_directory() // all others, like Windows
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk