Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] Request for comments on proposed relative() function
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-14 17:54:50
On May 14, 2014 1:39:35 PM EDT, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>The function has now been renamed from relative() to
>to make clearer that it deal with paths at a purely lexical level.
>I probably should have mentioned that work is underway on several
>additional functions to "do-the-right-thing" when the paths exist or
>partially exist in the external file system.
>On possibility is to add a semi_canonical() function which behaves like
>canonical() for an existing portion of a path, and then normalizes any
>trailing non-existent portion.
> This would allow an additional function that does the right thing for
>existing or partially existing paths. It might be implemented like
>path relative(const path& p, const path& base)
> return lexically_relative(semi_canonical(p), semi_canonical(base));
>It isn't clear yet if these semantics are really the most useful.
I haven't looked closely enough, but I wonder if things need to be segregated better such that lexical functions and classes are distinguished from the rest. You could use separate namespaces, for example.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk