From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-25 01:55:47
on Fri May 23 2008, Vladimir Prus <vladimir-AT-codesourcery.com> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> 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.
> Did you read all the messages in this thread? If you want to rename
> 'leaf' to 'basename', you cannot do that without breaking backward
> compatibility (no matter if you leave 'leaf' around as deprecated).
I guess I would have screamed a lot louder about "leaf" in 2003 if I had
realized that the library was also inventing a new meaning for
"basename" in a domain where it is already heavily used to mean
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk