From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-01 12:52:49
[I sent this a couple of days ago but it appears to have got lost in the
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:06:05 -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> Exploring the filesystem is, IMO, conceptually different from doing I/O.
The keyword there is "doing". I agree with your statement, I just don't
necessarily agree with the implication that naming the namespace "io"
means everything in the namespace is "doing" I/O. I would read it as
"related to I/O".
Filesystems are related to I/O, otherwise they serve no point.
boost::filesystem is about exploring _and_ modifying the underlying
filesystem; quite where you draw the line between an action being
"filesystem" related and I/O related is seems to be a bit fuzzy - creating
a file modifies the filesystem (hence filesystem::fstream) and this
involves I/O. So does the directory creation stuff.
I suspect that a move to "io" as a namespace would also require the
class names to change if things are to read correctly:
is nice, but
Or maybe drop boost::io as an idea...
Obviously, if other people read "io" to mean "doing I/O" then the name is
bad, so my justifications aren't much use, and any further ponderings can
be elided :-)
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk