From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-18 14:44:47
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >> I would turn the question around and ask what's wrong with boost::fs
> >> (and when I see boost I think std). I've never understood the
> >> rationale behind long namespace names. Yes, I can alias filesystem
> >> to fs myself. But when all of your users alias filesystem to fs, and
> >> you find yourself doing the same in documentation, examples, tests,
> >> and in your own code, then perhaps it should have been named fs in
> >> the first place.
> > I do all sorts of things in non-header source files that I would not dare
> > do in headers, and creating a name like "fs" is one of them :)
> But the question is why (and the name is boost::fs). Claiming the identifier
> 'fs' in the boost namespace isn't more evil than claiming the identifier
> 'ref' or 'type' or 'bind'... or 'function', if you will.
I'm not going to defend "type", because I'm not thrilled that it's there.
As for the others, only "ref" is an abbreviation, but we're knocking
something that's huge ("reference_wrapper", 17 characters) and is often
used several times in one line of code down to 3 characters.
I think it's a fuzzy line in the sand, so all I really know is that I do
like "ref" and don't like "fs" :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk