From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-30 11:40:39
Scott McMurray wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Scott McMurray wrote:
>>> And while we're on the subject of decomposition, would it be
>>> worthwhile to add decomposition from the front in terms of an
>>> uncomplete() function that'd give a relative path from one full path
>>> to another? uncomplete(/foo/new, /foo/bar) => ../new
>>> I think that complete is the only function without a corresponding inverse.
>> Do you have a compelling use case beyond complete not having an inverse?
> Any time you get a full path (from, say, an open file dialog) and
> you'd rather have the relative one to save, so that it won't break
> when moved around. An IDE, for example, would prefer a path relative
> to the project file's directory, so that you could check it out of SVN
> to whatever folder.
That seems compelling. Please submit a feature request to trac.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk