Why do some function names have a "native_" prefix?
To alert users that the results are inherently non-portable. The names are deliberately ugly to discourage use except where really necessary.
-Why not support a concept of specific kinds of file systems, such as posix_file_system or windows_file_system.
+Why not support a concept of specific kinds of file systems, such as posix_file_system or windows_file_system?
Portability is one of the one or two most important requirements for the library. Gaining some advantage by using features specific to particular operating systems is not a requirement. There doesn't appear to be much need for @@ -192,4 +192,4 @@
Use, modification, and distribution are subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at -www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
\ No newline at end of file +www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) Index: more/mailing_lists.htm =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/more/mailing_lists.htm,v retrieving revision 1.36 diff -u -r1.36 mailing_lists.htm --- more/mailing_lists.htm 4 Jan 2005 19:53:14 -0000 1.36 +++ more/mailing_lists.htm 20 Feb 2005 09:22:19 -0000 @@ -102,7 +102,9 @@ watching the Boost library development process. Virtually all Boost decisions, major or minor, technical or otherwise, are reached via public discussion on this mailing list. It is where the formal reviews of - proposed libraries take place. Subscribe or unsubscribe at http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost + proposed libraries take place. Subscribe or unsubscribe at http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost.When we talk about the "members of Boost", we are talking about those signed up for this main mailing list.