Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows

Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] temp_directory_path() behavior on Windows
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-16 04:46:10

On 4.2.2015. 16:10, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2015 at 15:04, Domagoj Saric wrote:
>> Doesn't a loss of connection to the network/removable drive necessarily mean
>> that the whole system goes down (so handling temps in that situation is kind of
>> moot)..?
>
> That's not really a call for library code to make. We simply have to
> try our best to be resilient to whatever weirdnesses client code puts
> us in.

By that rationale our code should be prepared to 'handle' someone trying to 
hot-swap a stick of RAM regardless of the fact that this will at best freeze the 
system or at worst fry the motherboard.
Of course library developers are called to make judgment calls on what's 'sane' 
when modeling a given system...

In the same vein, TEMP and TMP are system 'prescribed' variables which are 
supposed to exist. If they don't, the system is broken "and it's not really a 
call for Boost" to bloat everybodies binaries trying to workaround this 
hypothetical situation.

-- 
Domagoj Saric
Software Architect
www.LittleEndian.com