RE: [boost] Re: relative/absolute paths in filesystem library

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 13:25:24

At 09:56 AM 11/27/2002, Beman Dawes wrote:

 >...
 >
 >There has also been so consideration of providing has_xxx query 
functions,
 >which would express the above as:
 >
 >      foo.has_root_directory()
 >
 >Pros: Expresses concept a bit more directly, may be implemented more
 >efficiently than decomposition followed by empty().
 >Con: Fattens the interface.

So far, on firm ground. And the has_xxx functions will be provided.

 >If has_xxx query functions are provided, then there isn't really a need 
for
 >a separate absolute query, since foo.has_root() (or
 >foo.has_root_directory(), for those who prefer your definition.)

But that isn't correct; has_root() is (a) actually named has_root_path(), 
and (2) not the correct semantics, as it is true if either (rather than 
both) system_specific_root() or root_directory() is not empty.

 >Not having a function named absolute() might be safest, too, because it
 >would force users to choose exactly the has_xxx function they wanted,
 >rather than jumping to a conclusion about the semantics of absolute().

The name will be is_complete() and the semantics will be:

    has_root_directory()   // single rooted systems like POSIX
    has_system_specific_root()
      && has_root_directory()  // all others, like Windows

--Beman