From: Jason Stewart (res0054p_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 15:38:11
At 12:25 PM 1/31/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>On 1/31/02 11:52 AM, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > About the original thread: isn't std::string sufficient as a "pathname
> > class"?
>I was thinking the same thing.
>It would indeed be nice to have a set of functions that manipulate
>pathnames. But if these are truly pathnames, and not "abstract file system
>locations", then would make them functions that work on pathnames stored in
That's possible. The version that I posted earlier used std::string as the
storage. You could just put the functions in a namespace and use string.
However, I have found it useful to have a class to pass as arguments and
store. It is clearer to me what the purpose of the argument/variable is.
Its sort of like using bool instead of int. Functionally there is not real
difference but it is more explicit. Besides, I think the interface is cleaner.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk