Dave,
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 08:06 PM 8/9/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> >I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think the cure for someone being >confused about the term "absolute" on multi-root OSes is to pick the >definition that allows the term to be meaningful (an absolute path >identifies a specific location, and so must include the root) and *add >a clarifying note or definition for the corner case*, not to pick some >new term which nobody knows about and makes the library hard to >approach.
The problem is not someone who is confused. The problem are a potentionally significant number of users who are sure they know what they are doing, but don't. A clarifying note won't be much use to them, cause for them there seems to be nothing that needs clarification. Just to make this clear, I don't blame them for this. I think we are all prone to this behaviour. We mostly fail due to things we believe we know not due to those we think we don't know.
The library isn't all that large that people can't just read about each function.
There were lengthy discussions on the list of this and other naming issues during development, during review, and during the resolution of review issues. Many people had fairly strong views. IIRC, the idea that is_absolute( "/foo" ) was false on some operating systems was impeded by long-held beliefs. By giving the function an unfamiliar name, people are forced to actually read the specs instead of just assuming what it does, and that ends up being a good thing, IMO.
I second this.
Thomas
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
