From: Jason Stewart (res0054p_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-08 09:04:48
At 02:04 PM 3/8/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> > > I'm not sure I follow what you mean here. How does "top-level
> > root" compare
> > > to "/" in a Posix filesystem?
> > root_directory() just returns a "name" that represents the systems
> > root "directory". Above you claim that you want this directory
> > to "return" just '/', which indicates to me that '/' is the only
> > entry in the "directory" returned from root_directory(). This makes
> > it a "logical/psuedo/whatever" directory in the same sense that
> > a "root" directory in a DOS like system would be if we follow Beman's
> > suggestion. I'm not claiming to agree with this, I'm just trying to
> > follow the logic in the posting.
>The problem is simply that there is no such thing as a 'root' directory (in
>a portable world.) Under Windows, you can use \\192.168.0.1\sharename and
>access the whole Internet if you like.
I agree with this. Trying to make drives and UNC names appear like
directories seems fraught with problems. How about the other approach.
Instead of a single root, you could introduce the concept of volumes and
each volume has a root. On UNIX there would only be one volume. On Windows
there would be, i.e., A:, C:, \\somecomputer\share, etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk