[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

From: Trevor Taylor (xju_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-26 23:14:32

So it sounds to me like the :blat is *not* part of the extension. It 
sounds like the NT file name is made up of three parts: name, extension 
and "stream".

In which case I think it is fine to have functions extension() and 
change_extension() - they just should not report or modify the stream part.

To implement them I guess I'd need to know whether the file name was an 
NTFS filename, and then how to reliably locate the "extension" part?

Just my 2 cents...

Trevor

Edouard Poor wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 00:59, Neal D. Becker wrote:
> 
>>Slightly OT, but can anyone give me a hint what these alternate
> 
> streams are 
> 
>>intended for?  Is this an attempt to recommit something like the apple
>>data/resource fork?
> 
> 
> It allowed them to support running an Apple Share server from an NT box
> way back in the day with very little effort.
> 
> With XP, Microsoft has started to put data in there in a more Apple
> style -- for example the meta data about MP3s is stored in an alternate
> stream I believe. I suspect you'll see more of that in future OS's from
> MS.
> 
> 
>>There once was a time when people thought it would be a Good Thing
> 
> (tm) to get 
> 
>>their OS to recognize different properties of files.  Thus, VMS was
> 
> created.  
> 
>>In some theoretical sense, it probably was good. 
> 
> 
> In an actual sense it great under the early Mac OS's. A lot of the
> normal tedious work about having structured data associated with files
> and programs simply didn't exist.
> 
> Cheers,
> Edouard.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>