On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:36 -0400, Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org>
How about this instead:
struct shallow_status_t { }; extern shallow_status_t shallow;
status_flag status(path const &); // follows status_flag status(path const &, shallow); // doesn't follow
I marginally prefer the separately named functions because behavioural differences to me say separate functions names whereas overloads imply semanticly the same but with different types.
(It occurred to me that including the term "symlink" is limiting since not all OSes have "symlinks" that have (at least partly) analogous concepts. That means naming the function "symlink_status" is similarly limiting.)
I think symlink is a fine name and whether an overload or separate function names the function returning info on a symlink is going to be meaningless on a platform that does not have the concept. /ikh _______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. _______________________________________________________________________