Let's not tie these two issues together.
The discussion clearly shows that the startsWith/endsWith(String) APIs are a trap
that several people have fallen into. On that basis it should be deprecated.
(Ordinarily, so as to emit a warning, and not for removal, so there won't be any
compatibility issue.)
There is also no requirement that a new API be introduced to replace any deprecated
API. As the earlier discussion in the thread shows, both the path-based and the
string-based use cases can be written using existing APIs, somewhat less
conveniently and more verbosely; but these constructs are much more explicit and so
are preferable to the APIs to be deprecated. The deprecation text should steer
people toward the preferred constructs.
It would indeed be nice to have a file extension API, but this has been discussed
several times and has run aground each time for a variety of reasons. Tying these
together will hold up the deprecation for no good reason.
Let's proceed with just the deprecation first and work on the file extension API
separately.
s'marks
On 1/11/26 12:45 PM, David Alayachew wrote:
Thanks for the response Anthony. Messages have been arriving out-of-order for me,
so I didn't see yours at the time of me writing that message.
I think introducing the file extension API first, then gauging the need for a
deprecation before doing it is fine. Sounds like then that we are universally
agreed on the first step being to add the file extension API, yes?
On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 2:06 PM Anthony Vanelverdinghe <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
