From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-03 17:17:43
At 08:31 AM 10/3/2004, Russell Hind wrote:
>Walter Landry wrote:
>> 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"?
>Doesn't the OS your running deside what is allowed for it, therefore the
>OS name check is 'native'?
That's correct. So the fact that a particular OS can mount many different
file systems is not a problem as far as "native" is concerned.
In trying to redesign Boost.Filesystem to handle wide-character external
file names, mounts of different file systems are a serious problem if some
support wide-character names (NTFS, for example) and some don't (FAT).
AFAICS, the implementation of a wide-character name request will have to
determine that at runtime if wide-characters are supported by the actual
file system, and act accordingly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk