Re: [boost] Lighweight header-only version of Boost.Filesystem?

Subject: Re: [boost] Lighweight header-only version of Boost.Filesystem?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-23 22:41:31

on Sat Aug 20 2011, "Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet-AT-wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le 20/08/11 18:07, TONGARI a écrit :
>> 2011/8/20 Beman Dawes<bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Mathias Gaunard<
>>> mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I.....>Therefore, I would really like it if there was a lightweight
>>>> header-only version of Boost.Filesystem.
>>>> I don't need the full extent of features; I just need to have the ability
>>>> to do the following portably:
>>>>   - read all files of a directory
>>>>   - create directories
>>>>   - remove files and directories
>>>>   - rename files and directories
>>>>
>>>> The first point being the most important.
>>>>
>>> A header-only version would be a nice feature to offer.
>>>
>>> But it may be more time consuming to implement than it would appear.
>>> Vicente
>>> Botet tried to do the same with Boost.System, and ran into problems.
> I reached to get a header-only version of Boost.System. The main
> issues raised by Beman were that we need to have a consensus on how
> all the header only libraries behave under cygwin respect to the WIN
> not WIN interface. IMO when we use cygwin we shouldn't use the Windows
> API, Bemans prefered to use it as it was available.

What does "under cygwin" mean, exactly?

It seems to me like a no-brainer that when the target OS is Cygwin, we
should use the cygwin POSIX APIs, and when the target OS is Windows (as
it might be when using cygwin GCC with the -mno-cygwin flag), we should
use the Windows APIs.  Is there anything more to this decision than
that?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com