Re: [boost] [filesystem] very minor request

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-02 04:56:27

Gennaro Prota wrote:

> I don't know if this has been discussed in the LWG but I'd like to
> make
> 
>   basic_path(const string_type& s);  // (*)
> 
> explicit.

Let's look at your example to see why it isn't explicit.

Here is the signature:

    bool contains_dot( path const & p);

Users will certainly expect the following to work:

    assert( contains_dot( "foo.bar" ) );

I maintain that they also will expect the following to work:

    std::string foo( "foo.bar" );

    ... // much intervening code

    assert( contains_dot( foo ) );

I really don't think we want to force users to write:

    assert( contains_dot( path(foo) ) );

So the constructor can't be explicit.

--Beman