> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Vladimir Prus > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:51 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [boost] RE: Re: Filesystem: create_directories > > > Reid Sweatman wrote:
<snipped> > FWIW, I don't like > - "create_full_directory", because I don't understand what it means for > directory to be full. "Full of files" is one interpretation which is not > correct. > - "create_rooted_directory", because I don't know what's "rooted" > directory. > - "create_directory_and_path", because how if one can create > directory, one > can name that directory, and the path should already exist. Well, I knew they were imperfect attempts. The semantic difficulty you have with them is due to something I mentioned in a just-posted message (this thread is fragmenting in my reader for some reason) you'll see shortly, namely that a directory and a path are different things, and yet are often used interchangeably. I think in a library as fundamental as this the semantics implied by the names should be as tight as possible. > So, to summarize, I've no problem with the current name that I've > introduced. Of other suggestions "create_directory_and_parents" looks best > to me. "ensure_directory_exists" does not imply any operational semantic > (i.e. the name does not say that the directory will be created. One might > expect exception to be thrown if dir does not exist). > "demand_directory" is > good. One problem is that "demand" still does not communicate to me that > something will be created. Ditto. Reid Sweatman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
