Scott McMurray wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
...An alternative set I'd be comfortable with would be tail() for the current leaf() and head_path() for the current branch_path(). Hum... After sending that, I read Johan Råde's "parent" suggestion.
I really like parent_path() for the current branch_path().
I do too.
That leaves leaf(). tail() is arguably slightly better, but not by a lot. Other possibilities:
I really dislike tail() for this purpose, since as far as I'm concerned, tail is a list term that returns a list (or the empty list), so having a tail function that returns a single element is even less intuitive than leaf.
The name I usually see for that is last, which isn't all that good, with init for the parent directory part. Using snoc for operator/ is definitely not a good plan.
How about p == p.parent_path() / p.current_name()?
That's a nice way to describe the relationships. Thanks! "current_name" doesn't convey the right connotation to me. What about p == p.parent_path() / p.last_name() ? That seems pretty good to me.
And while we're on the subject of decomposition, would it be worthwhile to add decomposition from the front in terms of an uncomplete() function that'd give a relative path from one full path to another? uncomplete(/foo/new, /foo/bar) => ../new
I think that complete is the only function without a corresponding inverse.
Do you have a compelling use case beyond complete not having an inverse? Thanks for the suggestions, --Beman