From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-21 09:35:53
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 09:22 am, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> <another universe mode>
> Of course, since boost.filesystem is used by exactly zero real-world
> projects right now (because nobody was able to grok the meaning of
> 'leaf'), it's OK to change the names to more sane ones.
> </another universe mode>
> <this universe mode>
> Given that boost.filesystem appears to be highly popular, and apparently
> users don't care about conceptual clarify of 'leaf', changing those names
> will basically cause everybody to change, or conditionally change, their
> code, without any practical benefit.
> </this universe mode>
Why couldn't the name leaf just be deprecated but kept in the library for old
code to keep working? I'm only casually browsing this thread, but backwards
compatibility in this case doesn't seem like that big a problem.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk