Re: [boost] Filesystem Library: Final version for Formal Review

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-15 15:40:14

At 03:05 AM 9/15/2002, Thomas Witt wrote:

 >> Why not just make directory_iterator a typedef for an iterator_adaptor?
 >> Does it need additional interface beyond that of a standard iterator?
 >
 >In a way, yes. As I tried to explain in my previous posting it needs a 
ctor
 >that takes a path. For most of the stdlib iterators ctors aren't really 
an
 >issue, as the container classes act as iterator factories. This is
 >different for directory_iterator. So we have to provide the iterator
 >interface _and_ customized ctors. Thats why I said iterator_adaptor is
 >not really well suited.
 >
 >With iterator_adaptor only a ctor taken the base_type is provided. As I
 >tried to show in my code example there is a way to use iterator_adaptor
 >and have the desired ctor, but I consider this solution a hack. In order
 >to have the desired ctor(directory_iterator(path const&)) I have made 
path
 >the base type.

Your solution is clever, but I agree it is a hack.

The best solution seems at this point to just write directory_iterator 
implementation by hand.

The same problem affects the experimental recursive_directory_iterator.

Note that unless I'm missing something, these are pure implementation 
issues and don't affect the public Filesystem Library interface at all.

Thanks for all the suggestions and other help,

--Beman