From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-21 09:51:12
Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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.
Unless you want 'leaf' to be named 'basename'. See, we already have 'basename',
which unfortunately does something different.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk