From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-03 05:50:26
> > > > create_directory
> > > > and
> > > > create_directories
> > >
> > > Another option might be: "create_directory_and_parents"
> > > That name is longer than "create_directories" although it better
> > > describes the function.
> >
> > I like "create_directory_path"
>
> That one's good, and captures the essential distinction well. Other
> possibles: "create_full_directory," or "create_rooted_directory."
> Dunno. On whole, I might prefer your choice. Although it again
> lengthens the name, "create_directory_and_path" captures another minor
> piece of the distinction. You could also play with the distinction (none
> save semantic in most file systems) between "pathname" and "filename;" a
> filename is usually just the thing at the leaf-terminal end of the path
> (and needn't be a "file," save as a directory is often actually
> implemented as such), while the pathname is the full Monty.
>
> In the original scheme, I would think the problem with
> "create_directories" is that it would seem to imply (to me, at any rate)
> the creation of multiple directories at the same depth in the file
> system. Anyway, them's my kibitz's.
Ah, naming again. My favourite. :-)
I like create_path_and_directory. I prefer this order of the two terms
because logically the path exists before the directory itself does.
Dave