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:
>>> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk