Subject: Re: [boost] [Filesystem] Proposal: make filesystem generic-programming friendly
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-12 11:29:08
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte <mjklaim_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> Question: it is not totally clear to me what the proposal wants to do with
> the boost::filesystem::path class exactly.
> The example suggests that boost::filesystem::path would be usable for any
> filesystem implementation.
> In which case, do you suggest to remove absolute() and cannonical() from
> boost::filesystem::path so that it would only be possible to get these
> using one of the namespace functions overload of the same name, one for
> local_filesystem(), the other taking a filesystem as parametter?
In the committee version of the library, absolute() and canonical() have
already been removed from class path.
I'm holding off a number of changes to the Boost version pending ISO ballot
resolution. I don't want to change Boost filesystem only to have to change
it yet again if ISO ballot resolution forces a conflicting change.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk