on Wed May 21 2008, Larry Evans <cppljevans-AT-suddenlink.net> wrote:
On 05/21/08 08:48, Zach Laine wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008 09:34 am, Zach Laine wrote:
This sheds their context. The linear sequence does not exist in a vacuum. It is a sequence of nodes that defines a path through a filesystem tree. When I think of a filesystem, I think of it as (a) root node(s), interior nodes, and leaf nodes. The fact that I'm only looking at a subset of them when dealing with a given path does not change what kind of node each is conceptually. In short, I like "leaf()".
My impression from earlier posts, and the path decomposition table in the docs, is that leaf is a bad name because it can return an interior node in the filesystem.
Then the leaf referred to is still the leaf of a subtree of the filesystem. I'm as into proper naming as the next guy. The point I'm trying to get across is that the name "leaf()" seems very natural to me. In fact, it has never given me a moment's pause.
Would the term "pruned_leaf" be an acceptable compromise?
Bleah; that's just more complicated and less evocative of what's actually going on. Just use the darned name that everyone else uses! Or, if you *really* can't stand "basename()", at least use a word that's conceptually appropriate like "tail()" or, heck, "back()" -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com