Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-14 12:40:02

Beman Dawes wrote:
> The current approach is clearly too restrictive and isn't
> satisfactory. Beyond the problems you mention, there really isn't a
> single standard for portability. Even 8.3 names aren't portable to
> systems which don't allow periods in names. A whole family of
> checkers is needed, giving various degrees of portability. Some
> should be supplied with the library, but users also need to be able
> to provide their own.
> OTOH, a function that has to be explicitly called isn't going to be
> effective. Manual checking is too laborious in code that does a lot
> of path manipulation. A one time I took several pages of code and
> tried to add explicit checks. The code turned into a mess. Manual
> checking is also
> likely to be ignored by the very programmers who need it the most;
> those
> who have firm but erroneous ideas about what is or isn't portable.

I am not sure that it should be the responsibility of the path class to
enforce some notion of portability. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to defer
the portability check, if any, to the point where the path is actually used
in a filesystem operation?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at