On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 00:05 -0700, Joshua Juran wrote:
On Apr 9, 2011, at 12:56 AM, Phil Richards wrote:
I think the library should code against "normal" coding practise - and for that reason, I'd argue that .gitignore has stem .gitignore, and an empty extension. I'd argue that .gitignore doesn't have an extension at all, empty or otherwise. Nor does "foo.", unless you can associate the empty extension with an application which handles such files when opened.
I was referring to the usage of "extension" as used in the Boost.Filesystem library, where the extension() call returns the leading ".".
In other words, I'd say any filename beginning or ending with a dot, or lacking one entirely, doesn't have an extension.
IMO, this is wrong - under Unix, anyway. The two files "foo" and "foo." are different files. It would be odd if they both had the same stem *and* the same extension (as well as every other bit of the paths being identical). Phil -- Phil Richards, <news@derived-software.ltd.uk>