Re: [boost] [filesystem] Function name changes

From: Scott Woods (scott.suzuki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-04 04:44:54

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott McMurray" <me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] Function name changes

> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 22:27, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Michael Marcin wrote:
>>>
>>> That is annoying but it seems like a trailing slash at the end of a path
>>> would be enough to differentiate paths to files from paths to 
>>> directories.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of adding "file or directory" semantics to paths.
>>  Paths are just paths.  What about symlinks?  What about devices?
>> Should we find a way to represent that information in a path too?
>>
>
> Well, maybe there are some path-finding-domain terms that work? The
> only thing I can come up with is visited_path, though, and the
> connotations don't really fit.  I never recall hearing a term for the
> node on the closed list from which a node in the open list was
> expended...

A strange idea that I had some time ago; what about some kind of
compile-time attribute that could be used to distinguish a "device path"
from a "directory path"? This strange idea was a merging of previous
path+file and units discussions. Is there merit in having the compiler
complain when a device path is presented to a method expecting a
directory path?

Cheers.