From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-20 19:20:13
At 05:14 PM 3/20/2002, Jeff Garland wrote:
>Somewhere in this thread you were asking if is_file is really needed and
>that you were mostly using !is_directory(). I don't see a problem with
>eliminating is_file(). It is redundant and if you think it will cause
>confusion then I would kill it. More generically, I suppose, the issue
>is whether the thing is a 'composite/container' or a 'leaf'. So you
>could go with something like is_leaf() or is_container() but this just
>seems more obscure than is_directory() to me.
Agreed. I've never had any concern over is_directory(). But the more I
think about is_file(), the more I think Peter was right to question it.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Unless someone posts a strong counter argument, I'm going to kill
is_file().
--Beman