Boost logo

Boost :

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


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk