David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree that writing nicer replacements for createDirectoryIfMissing would > be a good idea, but I'm not sure I like your very short names. I think I'd > actually lean towards going with Jason's suggestion. It's a bit weird > defining a function with the same name as a standard library function, but > I think that's all right, since it's meant to be a replacement for that > function (and is itself pretty obvious). And its name is really the name > we want (since that's what it does). I still think that it would be rather confusing, although probably not source of bugs, (type system catches those). I also have a slight issue with overly verbose names, since they feel like reading sentences and that is quite a bit more overhead than spotting a single word. I chose mkdir, since everyone on Unix already knows what that "word" means.
Another proposal: mkdir = createDirectory mkdirIfMissing = createDirectoryIfMissing False mkdirRecursive = createDirectoryIfMissing True although you might be right that it's not worth renaming. I don't feel really strongly about the long names I guess, although "createDirectoryIfMissing NotRecursive" still is a little too descriptive for such a common operation... (Maybe the answer is to make the operation much less common instead? It'd seem that creating directories shouldn't happen that often in darcs.). Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
