From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-03 09:20:59
Walter Landry <wlandry_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Peter Dimov and others have also argued that the default is wrong, and I'm
>> sympathetic to their arguments. Some people may believe the default should
>> be "native" rather "no_check".
> If I so desired, I could mount HFS+, BeFS, JFS, FFS, BFS, ADFS, FAT,
> VFAT, NTFS, ext2/3, XFS, UMSDOS, Reiserfs, ISO 9660, and UDF on my
> machine. Which one is "native"?
> If the intent is make sure that all paths can actually be accessed on
> the machine, then you don't need to do any checks. The operating
> system does that for you. If you are not actually opening files, then
> perhaps you don't need this check anyway?
> Besides, doing any checking implies a (perhaps mild) performance hit,
> and I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get rid of something
> I don't need.
I've said it before, but I always found the checking to be much more
of a hindrance than a help.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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