From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-05 07:54:32
Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> "An object that can be written to, or read from, or both. A file has
>>> certain attributes, including access permissions and type. File types
>>> include regular file, character special file, block special file, FIFO
>>> special file, symbolic link, socket, and directory. Other types of files
>>> may be supported by the implementation."
>> Why do we follow specific definition of file in a portable library? Can we start
>> with the most simple names -- 'parent' and 'name'? What's wrong with them,
>> and what kind of confusion they will cause?
> It is a question of more explicit versus less explicit.
Ok, I'll vote for parent + name, then.
>>> The term "filename extension" is well established. See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename_extension or google for "file
>> Oh, using wikipedia and number of google hits to establish naming
>> sounds interesting -- you can some up with random API.
>> Note that "file extension" has 12'000'000 hits, whereas "file suffix"
>> has 2'000'000 hits, which does not seem to be on overwhelming difference.
>> Also, I don't know how to get google to produce hits only relevant to
>> names of API function in some libraries.
> www.google.com/codesearch and the other code search sites are useful in
> determining the relative popularity of names, but that's only one aspect
> of choosing good names, much less designing an API.
Heh -- it was *you* who tried to use Google/Wikipedia as an argument in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk