From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-19 20:08:47
Walter Landry <wlandry_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Brian Gray <briangray_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Should we (do we?) have some spreadsheet enumerating various filesystem
>> features, quirks, and limitations for whatever systems we can find, and
>> using that as a reference regarding how to organize features like
>> paths, file references, forks, or whatever else? It might help us to
>> back out of the code and re-examine the problem domain regardless of
>> the current state of Boost.
> I've been thinking that maybe the best way to provide for portable
> paths is to have a bunch of flags that you can set. So when you push
> something onto Beman's singleton stack, you can, for example, set the
> NTFS and VMS flags if you only care about those filesystems.
> However, that makes it difficult to extend to customized portability
> restrictions. That might require some kind of function stack within
> each element of the singleton stack. Then you can push the NTFS and
> VMS checkers onto that stack within the stack.
I _really_ hope we don't have any singleton stack which affects path
validation. It sounds like a nightmare for any application involving
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk