Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-02 17:21:10

Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:56:27 -0400, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> I really don't think we want to force users to write:
>> assert( contains_dot( path(foo) ) );
> Why not? Regardless of the example, I think we shouldn't blur the
> distinction between paths and strings, though the latter are perhaps
> the most common *representation* of the former.

That would imply the conversion from const char * should be explicit
too. Users would have to write:

     assert( contains_dot( path("") ) );

instead of:

     assert( contains_dot( "" ) );

For simple, script-like programs that do a lot of file operations, that
is asking a lot of the user.

As far as I can remember, there has never been a complaint from any user
regarding the converting constructors.

Is there any reason other than a concern for design purity that leads
you to want explicit constructors?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at