[boost] Re: [filesystem] Major changes before standardization

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 07:31:37

Peter Dimov wrote:

> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> That still leaves the question of single path vs separate path and
>> wpath classes. A single path class looks very good in a lot of ways
>> but we still have to decide how to deal with this case on a dual
>> narrow/wide O/S:
>>    path p( "foo" );
>>    p /= L"bar";
>>
>> How about a rule that if any portion of a path is wide, the entire
>> path gets converted to wide?
> 
> It's either that, or preserving the original width (thickness?). I'm not
> sure which is better, but see below.

The very same question arises with path/wpath:

   path p( "foo")
   p /= wpath(L"bar");
 
>> What about directory iteration? Is that wide or narrow? Don't
>> directory_iterators have to come as two types, narrow and wide?
> 
> With a path+wpath design, it's the user's choice. Iterating over a path
> returns a narrow iterator, and iterating over a wpath returns a wide
> iterator.
> 
> With a single path, we have two options. Do as above, or choose a
> preferred character type whenever the library needs to return a path to
> the user (that may or may not vary depending on the filesystem the path
> points to.)

What does windows do if a file has wide filename, you use narrow interface,
and wide filename cannot be concerted to 8-bit encoding without loss of
data?

- Volodya