Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-12 15:43:19

At 01:54 PM 11/12/2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> At 02:20 AM 11/12/2004, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> I'd be much happier with design like this:
>>> class path {
>>> public:
>>> path(char*);
>>> path(wchar_t*);
>>> string file_string() const;
>>> wstring file_wstring() const;
>>> };
>> A single path class approach is really interesting. Note, however,
>> that it
>> is a good bit more complicated than your synopsis above because of
>> the need to provide templated member functions to handle user defined
>> types.
>Is there _really_ such a need?

That's a good question. I personally think the need for UDT support is too
marginal to worry about.

I've just posted a query to the C++ Library Working Group's reflector to
see if anyone there has strong feelings one way or another.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at