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

From: Iain K. Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 11:35:21

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:36 -0400, Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>

> How about this instead:
> 
>    struct shallow_status_t { };
>    extern shallow_status_t shallow;
> 
>    status_flag status(path const &); // follows
>    status_flag status(path const &, shallow); // doesn't follow

I marginally prefer the separately named functions because behavioural
differences to me say separate functions names whereas overloads imply
semanticly the same but with different types.

> (It occurred to me that including the term "symlink" is limiting
> since not all OSes have "symlinks" that have (at least partly)
> analogous concepts.  That means naming the function
> "symlink_status" is similarly limiting.)
> 
I think symlink is a fine name and whether an overload or separate
function names the function returning info on a symlink is going to be
meaningless on a platform that does not have the concept.

/ikh

_______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
_______________________________________________________________________