> On July 7, 2015, 9:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 39 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line39> > > > > Do you mean std::basename()?
Nope, the free C function `basename()` is part of the POSIX pattern matching implementations and as such not part of the `std` namespace (not even wrapped). We commonly mark such function using the explicit, global namespace `::` in our C++ codebase. > On July 7, 2015, 9:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 24 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line24> > > > > I know that in many other places we have written "Basic abstraction", > > but this really adds no meaning. So let's stop that! > > > > And we don't deal with just about any file system here (e.g. FAT32), do > > we? > > > > Suggestion: > > > > "Represents UNIX file systems paths and offers common path > > manipulations." > > > > Or something like that :-) Yep. Good point, let update that as well. > On July 7, 2015, 9:50 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp, line 48 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/1/?file=994383#file994383line48> > > > > It would be good to explain why we are opting this way. How is this > > useful? OK, maybe nobody knows and we don't want to touch the code? There > > are various other inexplicable outcomes here. While these may seem inexplicable, they are defined for the standard implementation of this function. I guess what you would like to see is something more along the lines of a `dirname()` and `filename()` to produce results that are more straightforward. I think adding those as an additional implementation is valuable and Cody expressed that as well in the past. - Till ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/#review90677 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 29, 2015, 11:43 a.m., Till Toenshoff wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 29, 2015, 11:43 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske and Joerg Schad. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > see summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/path.hpp > a4afdad0b5f053186ace4d6a37b41cd02e7d415b > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35998/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Till Toenshoff > >
