Tim Rowledge wrote:
> Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Anthony Adachi wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>Although, I'm not sure what a good name might be
>>>Filename sounds, to my ears at least, too much like
>>>simply a class without any further responsibilities
>>>other than naming.
> 
> But that would be the point of Filename; separate out the ludicrously
> complex task of handling the naming of files so that other classes can
> deal with the other parts. Plain good factoring.
> 
> You don't ask a Filename to rename or delete or whatever. You just
> expect it to get the name right - which is not simple.

Sure, but whatever class we're talking about *does* rename, etc 
(according to the tests Lukas posted for discussion).  I don't disagree 
that there could be something that deals with file names, but as Ned 
said, it would be hard for an object to do that without any context.  If 
we're proposing both a File and a Filename (or whatever we're calling 
them), then that's fine too but that's different from what has been 
discussed so far.

Julian