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

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 11:42:17

> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> This particular case is on the fence. One could think of the overloaded 
> interface as a typesafe approximation of
> 
> status_return_flags status( path const & p, status_option_flags flags = 
> status_option_default );
> 
> with follow_symlink being the only option flag at the moment.

OK.  I'm missing your point, though.

> In general, though, excessive overloading should be avoided. My usual litmus 

I agree wholeheartedly that "excessive overloading should be
avoided."  I don't see this as excessive overloading.

> test for appropriate overloading is: can you tell what this does:
> 
>     f( x, y );
> 
> without looking up the exact types of x and y. 

You can never tell in C++.  Is "f" a macro?  What is the scope of
the call?  "f" is hardly a telling name, so how can one determine
what f(x,y) does for any pair of arguments?

All of those questions aside, how does this apply to the case
before us?

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