> > > > 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" > > 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.
Ah, naming again. My favourite. :-) I like create_path_and_directory. I prefer this order of the two terms because logically the path exists before the directory itself does. Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
