On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:04:02 -0500, David Bergman wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Phil Richards wrote:
Filesystems are related to I/O, otherwise they serve no point. uh, you could say the same about computers, too. Great idea! We should put everything in "boost::comp" for "computational notions." ;-)
Except that I/O isn't a computational notion, so that would be rather bogus. Let's got off this subject... it is way off topic. I'm really not fussed about what the abbreviated name is: I don't particularly like "fs", and "files" probably suffers from similar problems to "io" in terms of being misinterpreted.
Obviously, everything is somehow related. Pushing the abstraction this far is IMO just one step too far. I agree, and agree with David Abrahams in that "io" indeed indicates the input or output of data, which is quite different from the hierarchical beast called a file system...
...which is made up entirely of files that are created with I/O, and provides an abstraction of the hierarchy of these files so that you can read and write more of them using file I/O, and exists purely to hold files that are created and read by file I/O. And, of course, the boost::filesystem namespace contains classes for the reading and writing of files, too. Let's just leave it as "boost::filesystem"... phil -- change name before "@" to "phil" for email