Re: [boost] [filesystem] "leaf"

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-30 19:31:42

on Thu May 29 2008, Martin Wille <mw8329-AT-yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> ...An
>>> alternative set I'd be comfortable with would be tail() for the current 
>>> leaf() and head_path() for the current branch_path().
>> 
>> Hum... After sending that, I read Johan RÃ¥de's "parent" suggestion.
>> 
>> I really like parent_path() for the current branch_path().
>
> Sorry for the bikeshedding, but I really don't like parent_path. The 
> problem I see is related to symbolic links. "parent" suggests a parent 
> directory, even though parent_path() might return something that is not 
> the parent directory of a link target. I think the naming should reflect 
> the fact that we're operating on names only, not on an actual filesystem 
> structure. So, IMHO, "basename" is a better choice than anything 
> containing "parent".

Is this yet another alternate meaning for "basename?"  Nobody has
suggested using it to drop the last path element before, AFAIK.  I would
make the same argument with you as I have with Beman: "basename" has an
accepted meaning in the domain of filesystem APIs.  We can't use the
same name to mean something different.

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