[boost] Re: [Filesystem] Feature Request:Onemoreimplementationusing.NET

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-03 08:54:46

Pavel Chikulaev wrote:
>> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:d2oo3n$4oq$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>>> Now you may feel that this is still useful, and I have done exactly
>>> that, although not for .NET, in my own Regular Expression Component
>>> Library using Boost regex++, but I do not think you can ask any of
>>> the Boost programmers to do that for you. If you decide to take a
>>> Boost library and create a .NET implementation for it for your own
>>> use or that of others, no one will object.
>> I asked it, because I would like to do it by myself and because even
>> in managed C++
>> I still want to use boost libraries(and iostreams).
>> I just wanted to know does anybody else need it?

The need may be minimal because once you target .NET you may be limiting
yourself to a single OS and environment ( I am aware of Mono ). More
importantly .NET already has a set of filesystem like classes, so you are
competing against something that is already there. But if you feel it is
worthwhile and useful for others, go for it ( that is what I did with my
library ). Yu can even sell it if you like. There is nothing in Boost that
limits you from using it in a commercial product just as long as you are not
trying to sell a Boost implementation itself.

>>> But I think it is wrong to ask Boost implementors to work with an
>>> implementation that is not standard C++. After all Boost is about
>>> the C++ standard and creating advanced implementations which follow
>>> that standard as much as possible.
>> What about Posix and Windows implementation?

There is nothing about Posix or Windows API implementations that precludes
the use of standard C++, although the windows.h header file makes it more
difficult to use certain things, particularly macros, with conflict with it.
The boost Filesystem library works in Linux/Unix and in Windows.