From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-14 19:46:55
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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?
I agree, if only because I could imagine manipulating a bunch of
non-legal paths before actually using a legal one. We still have to
solve the problem, but at a different place. Beman's singleton stack
seems like a reasonable solution. We can argue over what the default
portability policy should be, but it almost becomes irrelevant because
it is easy to change and forget about it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk