Re: [boost] [filesystem] "leaf"

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-22 20:01:09

on Wed May 21 2008, Vladimir Prus <vladimir-AT-codesourcery.com> wrote:

> Johan RÃ¥de wrote:
>
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> I was just reviewing the filesystem docs and came across "leaf()".  I'm
>>> sure this isn't the first time I've seen it, but this time I picked up a
>>> little semantic dissonance.  Normally we think of "leaf" 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."  I wonder if this is the best possible name?
>>> 
>>> Is there a precedent we can draw on in some other language/library?  In
>>> python, it's os.path.basename(p).  Perl, php, and the posix basename
>>> command seem to do something similar.
>>> 
>> 
>> David is absolutely right.
>> 
>> The name leaf is the result of conceptual confusion,
>> failure to distinguish between the tree structure of the file system
>> and the linear structure of a path.
>> 
>> If possible, at this late stage, the names should be changed.
>
> <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>

It's easy enough to leave them deprecated, or even officially removed,
but available for backward-compatibility.

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