Thanks for the response Anthony. Messages have been arriving out-of-order for me, so I didn't see yours at the time of me writing that message.
I think introducing the file extension API first, then gauging the need for a deprecation before doing it is fine. Sounds like then that we are universally agreed on the first step being to add the file extension API, yes? On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 2:06 PM Anthony Vanelverdinghe < [email protected]> wrote: > I dissent. (Apparently my previous message wasn't clear.) > > The right order of things is to first introduce a file extension API. Then > see if there's still complaints about `Path::endsWith(String)`. And only > then, if there are, consider taking action. > > In my previous message I've already explained how these methods add real, > tangible value and actually are intuitive. > (Again, ask developers to guess how `A::foo(B)` behaves, given that both > `A::foo(A)` and `B::foo(B)` exist, and a large majority of them will > intuitively guess it converts its `b` argument to an instance of `A` and > passes it on to `A::foo(A)`. And their intuition would be correct in the > case of `Path::endsWith(String)`. That being said, I'll be the first to > admit that I've also made the mistake of attempting to use > `Path::endsWith(String)` to test the file extension.) > > In hindsight, maybe `endsWithNames(String)` would've been a better choice, > but hindsight is 20/20. > > Deprecating these methods now is premature. And deprecating them without > replacement methods would result in way more complaints than there have > ever been about `endsWith(String)`. > > Anthony > On 1/11/2026 12:19 AM, David Alayachew wrote: > > Of course. > > I see lots of approvals and not really any dissenters. Are we waiting for > more responses? Or is there anything we can do to kick start this? > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026, 10:22 PM Brian Burkhalter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for the corroboration. >> >> On Jan 8, 2026, at 1:50 PM, David Alayachew <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for reviving this. >> >> I am perfectly happy with the idea of deprecating the >> Path.{start,ends}With(String), and then only add the file extension method. >> Originally, I didn't know that new method was on the table, so I suggested >> a rename. But the file extension api feels like the superior solution. >> >> 10 times out of 10, if I am calling endsWith, the only time I am not >> looking for "whole" path elements is when I am looking for a file >> extension. In every other instance, the api does exactly what I expect and >> want. And plus, something like looking for a file extension is better off >> being explicit. >> >>
