From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-01 15:37:41
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:04:02 -0500, David Bergman wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> Phil Richards wrote:
>> > Filesystems are related to I/O, otherwise they serve no point.
>> uh, you could say the same about computers, too.
> Great idea! We should put everything in "boost::comp" for "computational
> notions." ;-)
Except that I/O isn't a computational notion, so that would be rather
bogus. Let's got off this subject... it is way off topic.
I'm really not fussed about what the abbreviated name is: I don't
particularly like "fs", and "files" probably suffers from similar problems
to "io" in terms of being misinterpreted.
>> Obviously, everything is somehow related. Pushing the abstraction this
>> far is IMO just one step too far.
> I agree, and agree with David Abrahams in that "io" indeed indicates the
> input or output of data, which is quite different from the hierarchical
> beast called a file system...
...which is made up entirely of files that are created with I/O, and
provides an abstraction of the hierarchy of these files so that you can
read and write more of them using file I/O, and exists purely to hold
files that are created and read by file I/O. And, of course, the
boost::filesystem namespace contains classes for the reading and writing
of files, too.
Let's just leave it as "boost::filesystem"...
-- 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