Re: [boost] [filesystem] Function name changes

From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-03 14:49:30

Beman wrote:
> > 
> > Well I'm afraid we don't know what that is.  The (only) 
> good reason to 
> > use base_name() is that there is precedent; it's not 
> because it makes 
> > particularly "good sense." You yourself find it 
> counterintuitive, IIUC.
> 
> That's correct. I'm only suggesting it because of the precedent.
> 
> >  If "base" _did_ make any sense, I would guess that base_path() was 
> > the identity function.
> > 
> > How about parent_directory(), containing_directory(), 
> > container_path(), container(), or parent()?
> 

There is also a precedent for dirname. I think basename/dirname are both
posix functions (but I'm stuck in windows so don't take my word).
You could have :
  dir_name = branch_path
  base_name = leaf
  extension = extension  
Then
  base_name(f, extension(f)) = basename(f)

<snip>
> >> Comments?
> > 
> > I worry a bit about the chance of silent misbehavior due to 
> > basename/base_name spelling errors, and about what happens 
> when both 
> > names make it into the same codebase.
> 
> I don't like that either, but (1) there doesn't seem much 
> choice if "base*" is to be the new name, and (2) the problem 
> doesn't last indefinitely since the deprecated form of the 
> names would go away in say one year.
> 

This can be mitigated by providing a macro to enable/disable deprecation
warnings.
People who don't have time to fix names can use something like
BOOST_FS_NO_DEPRECATE (or BOOST_NO_DEPRECATE?) until they get a chance
to fix their code.
Then you can deprecate basename so accidental misspelling of base_name
as basename will result in a warning.

-- John