Re: [boost] Re: relative/absolute paths in filesystem library

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-01 10:47:00

At 08:02 PM 11/29/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
 >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >>  >I don't know if it was controversial, but I did bring this up during
 >>  >the review and I do think its very important. The basic definition
 >>  >of an absolute path should be a path that overrides the base path
 >>  >during a resolve. To rephrase, 'foo' is relative because it is an
 >>  >adjustment from the current directory, '/foo' on the other hand
 >>  >takes precendence over the current path. To re-rephrase, '/foo' is
 >>  >relative to the current drive, but not to the current directory.
 >>
 >> That seems like a stretch to me. With your definition, "absolute"
 >> isn't equivalent to "not relative", and that seems counter
 >> intuitive.
 >
 >Maybe, but it does seem to capture reality on Windows.

At one point we discussed using the name "is_complete" to capture the 
notion of a complete path, which on multi-rooted operating systems like 
Windows would mean having both a drive and the root directory. That name 
seems less likely to cause confusion.

I'll hold a mini-review of the library in a few days so people can look at 
class filesystem::path as a whole.

--Beman