Re: [boost] Re: [filesystem] Operations predicates

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 09:38:55

From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:005701c55008$0eacc010$6401a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> >> Rob Stewart wrote:
> >>> I don't like the status()/symlink_status() split.  How about
> >>> overloading like this:
> >>>
> >>>   struct follow_symlink_t { };
> >>>   extern const follow_symlink_t follow_symlink;
> >>>
> >>>   status_flags status(path const &);
> >>>   status_flags status(path const &, follow_symlink_t);
> >>
> >> FWIW, I'm in favor of the current design.
> >
> > Rationale?
> 
> I don't view overloading for overloading's sake as improvement; there's 
> nothing wrong with giving different names to different behaviors.

These functions do very nearly the same thing.  That seems an
ideal case for overloading.

> The practice of overloading on behavior seems inspired by new(nothrow), but 
> in that case we simply don't have the option of providing a 
> differently-named function.

You say that as if new(nothrow) was a poor source of
inspiration.  I thought it was just the thing.

> One practical argument for not introducing overloading is that it's harder 
> to use boost::bind on an overloaded function. 

Is that a significant issue for this pair of functions?

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;