RE: [boost] Re: relative/absolute paths in filesystem library

[Beman Dawes]

At 09:56 AM 11/27/2002, Beman Dawes wrote:

>...
>
>There has also been so consideration of providing has_xxx query functions,
>which would express the above as:
>
> foo.has_root_directory()
>
>Pros: Expresses concept a bit more directly, may be implemented more
>efficiently than decomposition followed by empty().
>Con: Fattens the interface.

So far, on firm ground. And the has_xxx functions will be provided.

>If has_xxx query functions are provided, then there isn't really a need for
>a separate absolute query, since foo.has_root() (or
>foo.has_root_directory(), for those who prefer your definition.)

But that isn't correct; has_root() is (a) actually named has_root_path(), and (2) not the correct semantics, as it is true if either (rather than both) system_specific_root() or root_directory() is not empty.

>Not having a function named absolute() might be safest, too, because it
>would force users to choose exactly the has_xxx function they wanted,
>rather than jumping to a conclusion about the semantics of absolute().

The name will be is_complete() and the semantics will be:

has_root_directory() // single rooted systems like POSIX
has_system_specific_root()
&& has_root_directory() // all others, like Windows

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost