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
>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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk