Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master c98c00d 10/33: Say "basename" rather than "leaf"

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Mon,  3 May 2021 08:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Greg Chicares 
<gchicares@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

GC> branch: master
GC> commit c98c00dbe5559b76a22b502dcce471f347514b3c
GC> Author: Gregory W. Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net>
GC> Commit: Gregory W. Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net>
GC> 
GC>     Say "basename" rather than "leaf"
GC>     
GC>     The POSIX dirname/basename nomenclature is universally understood.

 I must be an exception, but I never know if "basename" is supposed to
include the extension or not.

 It looks like it does include the extension in lmi, and maybe we don't
need anything else anyhow, but I just wonder: how would you call just the
name part if you had to refer to it, should we use "stem" for it now? I
don't have any real objections to using "stem", but doing it while not
using "filename" for the "stem + extension" part is 50% consistent with
std::fs, which is arguably the worst kind of (in)consistency.

 FWIW personally I find the terms "base name" for "stem" and "full name"
for "stem + extension" the most clear, but I'm not going to claim that
there is anything universal about this terminology neither.

 Sorry for starting yet another naming discussion, I know that those are
the most annoying ones, but I've decided that if there ever was a chance
for this to be useful, it was now, and not later.

VZ

pgpdC0kceM2vE.pgp
Description: PGP signature