Re: [boost] Boost.Filesystem: naming, canonical path

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-10 15:11:27

Dave,

Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 08:06 PM 8/9/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> 
>  >
>  >I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think the cure for someone being
>  >confused about the term "absolute" on multi-root OSes is to pick the
>  >definition that allows the term to be meaningful (an absolute path
>  >identifies a specific location, and so must include the root) and *add
>  >a clarifying note or definition for the corner case*, not to pick some
>  >new term which nobody knows about and makes the library hard to
>  >approach.

The problem is not someone who is confused. The problem are a 
potentionally significant number of users who are sure they know what 
they are doing, but don't. A clarifying note won't be much use to them, 
cause for them there seems to be nothing that needs clarification. Just 
to make this clear, I don't blame them for this. I think we are all 
prone to this behaviour. We mostly fail due to things we believe we know 
not due to those we think we don't know.

> 
> The library isn't all that large that people can't just read about each 
> function.
> 
> There were lengthy discussions on the list of this and other naming 
> issues during development, during review, and during the resolution of 
> review issues. Many people had fairly strong views. IIRC, the idea that 
> is_absolute( "/foo" ) was false on some operating systems was impeded by 
> long-held beliefs. By giving the function an unfamiliar name, people are 
> forced to actually read the specs instead of just assuming what it does, 
> and that ends up being a good thing, IMO.

I second this.

Thomas