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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 07:47:32

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 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");

We can avoid it by not defining a mixed operator/=, though.