Re: Why isn't the "last access time" part of the filesystem library?

From: richard_fanta (richard.fanta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-08 09:03:43

--- In Boost-Users_at_[hidden], Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 03:49 PM 5/7/2003, richard_fanta wrote:
> 
>  >Out of the last 50 apps you wrote that did file access, how many
>  >involved CD-ROMS/DVDs that were ISO 9660 filesystems?
> 
> All of the commercial apps I've done for over ten years have to run 
from 
> ISO 9660 filesystems (among others). The bug reports remind me of 
this if I 
> forget.
> 
> --Beman

Point well taken, but this would probably be expected of digital 
mapping applications.  [I'm sure you've done a lot more, too.]

No one is suggested precluding the use of ISO 9660 filesystems, and I 
don't see how adding "last access" time to the Boost filesystem 
library would do that.  I'm sure that something reasonable could be 
agreed for "last access" time there, while also accomodating the very 
common (and I would argue greater volume) of applications that use 
read/write Posix and Windows filesystems.

I recently read an article summarizing an interview with you 
(Beman).  In it you had stated a highly laudable goal of creating a 
set of C++ libraries to make it competitive with those available in 
Java, Python, etc.

IMO, to make C++ competitive in this way, you have to make it very 
easy for folks to do basic things that they expect to be there (such 
as what we've been discussing here).  

As a user, having to augment C++ libraries fairly often to meet 
common needs is an annoyance (as a relative C++ newbie current 
lacking the skill of many here, it's hard to preserve the same style 
as Boost) that makes me want to go elsewhere (e.g. back to Java).  
Also, again (currently ;^) lacking mastery to make such additions 
cross-platform, my app will likely fail in that regard too, hence 
losing one of the principle benefits of Boost.  Neither of these is a 
good thing, and both cost time.