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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk