[boost] RE: Re: Filesystem: create_directories

From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-03 05:50:26

> > > > 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"
> 
> 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.

Ah, naming again.  My favourite. :-)

I like create_path_and_directory.  I prefer this order of the two terms
because logically the path exists before the directory itself does.

Dave