I dissent. (Apparently my previous message wasn't clear.)
The right order of things is to first introduce a file extension API.
Then see if there's still complaints about `Path::endsWith(String)`. And
only then, if there are, consider taking action.
In my previous message I've already explained how these methods add
real, tangible value and actually are intuitive.
(Again, ask developers to guess how `A::foo(B)` behaves, given that both
`A::foo(A)` and `B::foo(B)` exist, and a large majority of them will
intuitively guess it converts its `b` argument to an instance of `A` and
passes it on to `A::foo(A)`. And their intuition would be correct in the
case of `Path::endsWith(String)`. That being said, I'll be the first to
admit that I've also made the mistake of attempting to use
`Path::endsWith(String)` to test the file extension.)
In hindsight, maybe `endsWithNames(String)` would've been a better
choice, but hindsight is 20/20.
Deprecating these methods now is premature. And deprecating them without
replacement methods would result in way more complaints than there have
ever been about `endsWith(String)`.
Anthony
On 1/11/2026 12:19 AM, David Alayachew wrote:
Of course.
I see lots of approvals and not really any dissenters. Are we waiting
for more responses? Or is there anything we can do to kick start this?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026, 10:22 PM Brian Burkhalter
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the corroboration.
On Jan 8, 2026, at 1:50 PM, David Alayachew
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for reviving this.
I am perfectly happy with the idea of deprecating the
Path.{start,ends}With(String), and then only add the file
extension method. Originally, I didn't know that new method was
on the table, so I suggested a rename. But the file extension api
feels like the superior solution.
10 times out of 10, if I am calling endsWith, the only time I am
not looking for "whole" path elements is when I am looking for a
file extension. In every other instance, the api does exactly
what I expect and want. And plus, something like looking for a
file extension is better off being explicit.
