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]>
>> 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("foo.bar") ) );
assert( contains_dot( "foo.bar" ) );
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk