Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 10:08 PM 8/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote: > >David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> > What about: > >> > > >> > assert( p.branch_path().empty() ); > >> > > >> > Isn't that closer to what you are trying to express? > >> > >> I guess so. I didn't see branch_path(). > > > >BTW, it would feel much more natural to me if it were > > > > path root() const; > > path branch() const; > > path leaf() const; > > > >but because of the portable-ization of non-portable windows path > >constructs, I think something this simple is impossible. > > It isn't just Windows - multi-rooted file systems with named roots are > a feature of many operating systems. Not to mention URI/URL's.
It isn't multi-rooted systems which cause the problem, though. It's the need to represent paths that are only rooted under some notion of "the current root", e.g. the windows path "/foo". -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
