RE: [boost] Re: Filesystem: create_directories

From: Reid Sweatman (drunkardswalk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-02 20:27:41

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:36 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Filesystem: create_directories
>
>
> "Jeremy B. Maitin-Shepard" <jbms_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:51:43 +0200 Thomas Witt
> > <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> This seems to have slipped by me. I really feal uncomfortable with
> >> having two different functions named
> >>
> >> create_directory
> >> and
> >> create_directories
> >>
> >
> > Another option might be: "create_directory_and_parents"
> > That name is longer than "create_directories" although it better
> > describes the function.
>
> I like "create_directory_path"
>
>
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com

That one's good, and captures the essential distinction well.  Other
possibles:  "create_full_directory," or "create_rooted_directory."  Dunno.
On whole, I might prefer your choice.  Although it again lengthens the name,
"create_directory_and_path" captures another minor piece of the distinction.
You could also play with the distinction (none save semantic in most file
systems) between "pathname" and "filename;" a filename is usually just the
thing at the leaf-terminal end of the path (and needn't be a "file," save as
a directory is often actually implemented as such), while the pathname is
the full Monty.

In the original scheme, I would think the problem with "create_directories"
is that it would seem to imply (to me, at any rate) the creation of multiple
directories at the same depth in the file system.  Anyway, them's my
kibitz's.

Reid Sweatman