From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-04 20:13:02
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sebastian Redl
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> What is the rationale for providing path and wpath types instead of
>> using a single path type?
> 1) Narrow encoding paths always existed, because the fstreams took narrow
> 2) wpath was added later by request, I believe. Also, because the narrow
> encoding under Windows is never UTF-8 and thus can't ever represent all
> paths, and the NT and CE kernels natively use UTF-16 (wide characters).
Yes, we need the ability for path objects to store "narrow" and
unicode strings, and the ability to talk to the OS. This can be
achieved by a single path type and a few conversion functions, can it
Reverge Studios, Inc.