[boost] Re: Filesystem portable path rationale and use-cases

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-19 18:17:26

Brian Gray <briangray_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 12:35 AM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>> My feeling from all these examples is that a path string is
>> inherently specific to the system for which it was specified, and
>> can't really be ported to anywhere else.  Much like a string is
>> usually inherently specific in its encoding to the system-specified
>> encoding.  However, the filesystem library can provide a portable
>> way to manipulate this system specific path, much like the string
>> library provides a portable way to manipulate the system-specific
>> encoded string.  In view of this, why try for a "portable path" at
>> all?
>
> This may have been covered already, but I would go further and assert
> that the very concept of a string path is non-portable.  

There has to be some way it's expressed on the system, since fopen
and fstream take strings.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com