Re: [boost] [filesystem] Function name changes

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-03 17:58:20

David Abrahams wrote:

> FWIW, though I think it's probably a good idea to use base_name as you
> are suggesting, I was much less attached to the idea of using it to mean
> what is currently called leaf() than I was opposed to the idea of using
> it to mean something else, if you catch my drift :-)

Ah! Understood.

> 
> So one other option that avoids the above issues (not that I'm pushing
> this route) is to pick another name for what you currently call leaf().

Let's say branch_path() is changed to parent_path(). That suggests a 
full set of names based on the parent/child decomposition of a path:

* Change branch()    to parent_path()
* Change leaf()      to child()
* Change basename()  to child_prefix()
* Change extension() to child_extension()

At first glance, those names seem reasonable clear and self-consistent.

What's your take on that set?

Although historically basename() and extension() were free functions, my 
sense is the replacements should be basic_path member functions as they 
are closely related to the basic_path decomposition functions. Do you 
have an opinion on that?

--Beman