Re: [boost] [filesystem] "leaf"

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-22 19:58:59

on Wed May 21 2008, Larry Evans <cppljevans-AT-suddenlink.net> wrote:

> On 05/21/08 08:48, Zach Laine wrote:
>  > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
>
>  >> On Wednesday 21 May 2008 09:34 am, Zach Laine wrote:
>
>  >>> This sheds their context.  The linear sequence does not exist in a
>  >>> vacuum.  It is a sequence of nodes that defines a path through a
>  >>> filesystem tree.  When I think of a filesystem, I think of it as
>  >>> (a) root node(s), interior nodes, and leaf nodes.  The fact that
>  >>> I'm only looking at a subset of them when dealing with a given
>  >>> path does not change what kind of node each is conceptually.  In
>  >>> short, I like "leaf()".
>
>  >> My impression from earlier posts, and the path decomposition table
>  >> in the docs, is that leaf is a bad name because it can return an
>  >> interior node in the filesystem.
>
>  > Then the leaf referred to is still the leaf of a subtree of the
>  > filesystem.  I'm as into proper naming as the next guy.  The point
>  > I'm trying to get across is that the name "leaf()" seems very
>  > natural to me.  In fact, it has never given me a moment's pause.
>
>
> Would the term "pruned_leaf" be an acceptable compromise?  

Bleah; that's just more complicated and less evocative of what's
actually going on.  Just use the darned name that everyone else uses!
Or, if you *really* can't stand "basename()", at least use a word that's
conceptually appropriate like "tail()" or, heck, "back()"

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com