Re: [boost] Re: Shouldn't boost::filesystem be BOOST_POSIX on cygwin?

From: Carlo Wood (carlo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-18 11:00:18

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 08:32:32AM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Yeah.  But IMO on cygwin boost::filesystem should handle both formats.

I agree.  I am currently working around the problem by implemeting
support for this in my own code (I don't want my code to break when
boost suddenly changes its default - or when someone ELSE links my
software with a boost that has been compiled with BOOST_POSIX :/).

My approach is this:

When "/foo/bar" (which has a root_directory) is not complete (according
to boost::filesystem::is_complete) then apparently we have a multi-root
system and I prepend the cygwin installation path before it (only on
cygwin that is; actually I prepend something that I called a 'root_base',
which is empty on GNU/Linux, and "C:/cygwin" (for example) on cygwin.
On windows this would be the current drive name ("C:" or "D:" etc)).

If it *is* complete, then it is not touched because then we apparently
have a single-root system.

We observe that this correction is only needed when

   !fs::is_complete(ph) && ph.has_root_directory()

Because, when it is complete, then the path already works - 
and when it isn't and there is also no root directory - then
the path is relative and gets expanded correctly (namely, current_path()
*does* include the 'root_base' on cygwin with BOOST_WINDOWS).

Having defined "root_base" above - then only thing that is needed
is to add this test for the parameters of certain operations, like
'exists'.  Thus, the boost::filesystem::exists function then would
be changed to prepend the root_base when the path pass to it is
not complete but _does_ have a root_directory.

What do you think?

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo_at_[hidden]>