From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-03 17:29:37
> >However to be consistent it clearly says to me that operator* should not
> >return std::string, but must return dir_entry. It's just that dir_entry
> >provides no public methods....
> I assume you mean no public methods beyond those required for use in
> standard containers.
> But that sounds awfully dogmatic. What possible harm comes from making a
> small number of functions public?
I agree. The only real downside I see is the inconsistent access mechanism. I
guess the question is whether having a different mechanism for required
attributes versus optional attributes helps or hurts library understanding.
> This seems like the wrong library to use as a vehicle to try to convince
> people to use only the new property map idiom. Why not use the old member
> function idiom for the common uses (names, is_directory), and leave the new
> idiom for the optional attributes?
I agree with this, but now that I understand the approach a bit more (and it has
evolved a bit :-) I could probably live with it either way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk