Beman Dawes wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
FWIW, though I think it's probably a good idea to use base_name as you are suggesting, I was much less attached to the idea of using it to mean what is currently called leaf() than I was opposed to the idea of using it to mean something else, if you catch my drift :-)
Ah! Understood.
So one other option that avoids the above issues (not that I'm pushing this route) is to pick another name for what you currently call leaf().
Let's say branch_path() is changed to parent_path(). That suggests a full set of names based on the parent/child decomposition of a path:
* Change branch() to parent_path() * Change leaf() to child() * Change basename() to child_prefix() * Change extension() to child_extension()
At first glance, those names seem reasonable clear and self-consistent.
What's your take on that set?
Well, "parent" describes a relationship between the path being operated on and the result. "Child," on the other hand, does not. So that doesn't work for me. I would prefer "parent" and "filename." I would prefer "drop_extension" and "extension," although I rather liked Volodya's "stem" suggestion.
Although historically basename() and extension() were free functions, my sense is the replacements should be basic_path member functions as they are closely related to the basic_path decomposition functions. Do you have an opinion on that?
I dunno. The extension splitting things feel like they're string operations more than path operations. It's not clear what should happen when you ask for the child_prefix of a path with structure, although drop_extension makes that a little clearer. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com