|
Boost : |
From: Michael Marcin (mike.marcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-03 20:52:56
David Abrahams wrote:
> Bjørn Roald wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>
>>> * 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?
>> I am not sure this is any good. Considder the path "../../a/b" and the
>> meaning of parent and child.
>>
>> The only sensible parent is in the middle and we don't even know it's
>> name. Children are at both ends the implicit "." or "b".
>
> The parent of '../../a/b' is '../../a'
> The parent of '../../a' is '../..'
> The parent of '../..' is probably '../../..'
>
> If Beman intended '..' to be the result of the final transformation
> above, then we should be using something like pop() to describe it.
>
>
Doesn't leaf serve 2 functions? If the path points to a directory it
returns most derived directory (to make a bad analogy to class
hierarchy). If the path points to a file it returns the filename.
It seems to me that this duality makes it difficult to choose a
meaningful name in the domain of file systems.
Personally I think I like
parent() - if this is a path to a subdirectory or a file returns a
path one level above directory() otherwise returns *this
directory() - if this is a path to a file returns a path to the
directory that contains the file otherwise returns *this
filename() - if this is a path to a file returns a string containing
the filename otherwise returns an empty string
basename() - if this is a path to a file returns a string containing
the filename without its extension otherwise returns an empty string
extension() - if this is a path to a file returns a string contains the
filename without its basename otherwise returns an empty string
Thanks,
Michael Marcin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk