std.path.toAbsolutePath / toNormalizedPath / toRelativePath

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 06/25/2015 04:24 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 June 2015 at 13:35:30 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 22:45:10 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> http://dump.thecybershadow.net/0362443dfcca30860db907e494831b79/names.diff
>>>
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> - The eager versions are called absolutePath, normalizedPath,
>> relativePath. If anything, the current naming scheme is opposite to
>> some options we've been discussing (e.g. eager=toLowerCase,
>> lazy=lowerCase[d|r]).
>>
>> Suggested new names: asAbsolutePath, asNormalizedPath, asRelativePath.
>>
>> Couldn't think of anything better, but I think this is an improvement.
>> If we are to adopt the "as" prefix, we could also go with
>> asLowerCase/asUpperCase for the std.uni ones.
>
> That seems like a reasonable idea for the cases where we really don't
> have a noun to act as the one doing the action. The situation is weird
> enough with uppercase and lowercase, since you end up with stuff like
> upperCaser and lowerCaser when caser isn't really a thing, but at least
> there, we at least have a fake noun that makes sense. For the path ones,
> I don't see any kind of noun that makes sense. So, asAbsolutePath, etc.
> definitely makes some sense, so maybe asLowerCase and asUpperCase would
> make more sense too. In general though, I'd prefer that we go with the
> noun naming scheme - particularly when they're basically constructors
> for ranges. But it obviously doesn't work in all cases.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

pathAbsolutizer, pathNormalizer, pathRelativizer. :-)