From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-20 13:04:03
> > in the context of a tree as being a thing with no children. An
> > interior node like a directory that has files or other
> directories in
> > it is usually not called a "leaf."
> Right. And "leaf" never returns an interior node of a path.
> > I wonder if this is the best possible name?
> The names used by the filesystem library were carefully
> chosen as a matched set. So you can't change a single name
> without making a corresponding change to the other names
> (like "branch") it is related to.
Is a tree a good way to describe a path? I mean, the path itself is a
basically a list of names right? Many of us think of the filesystem
itself as a tree (whether it is or not, at least it is a digraph).
To me a path is a sequence (a list) of connected nodes in a graph (or
tree), and this analogy shold hold with filesystem. A leaf is a node in
a tree with no out-edges, and the last node in a path may or may not be
I think that python (since somebody mentioned that already) uses a
'head' and a 'tail' to describe what filesystem currently calls the
'branch_path' and 'leaf' of a path. That makes sense since to me since
it captures the notion that a path is a sequence of names.
-- John Femiani
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk