> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Abrahams > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [boost] Re: Filesystem: create_directories > > > "Jeremy B. Maitin-Shepard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:51:43 +0200 Thomas Witt > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> This seems to have slipped by me. I really feal uncomfortable with > >> having two different functions named > >> > >> create_directory > >> and > >> create_directories > >> > > > > Another option might be: "create_directory_and_parents" > > That name is longer than "create_directories" although it better > > describes the function. > > I like "create_directory_path" > > > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > www.boost-consulting.com
That one's good, and captures the essential distinction well. Other possibles: "create_full_directory," or "create_rooted_directory." Dunno. On whole, I might prefer your choice. Although it again lengthens the name, "create_directory_and_path" captures another minor piece of the distinction. You could also play with the distinction (none save semantic in most file systems) between "pathname" and "filename;" a filename is usually just the thing at the leaf-terminal end of the path (and needn't be a "file," save as a directory is often actually implemented as such), while the pathname is the full Monty. In the original scheme, I would think the problem with "create_directories" is that it would seem to imply (to me, at any rate) the creation of multiple directories at the same depth in the file system. Anyway, them's my kibitz's. Reid Sweatman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
