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

[Beman Dawes]

At 08:02 PM 11/29/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
>Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >I don't know if it was controversial, but I did bring this up during
>> >the review and I do think its very important. The basic definition
>> >of an absolute path should be a path that overrides the base path
>> >during a resolve. To rephrase, 'foo' is relative because it is an
>> >adjustment from the current directory, '/foo' on the other hand
>> >takes precendence over the current path. To re-rephrase, '/foo' is
>> >relative to the current drive, but not to the current directory.
>>
>> That seems like a stretch to me. With your definition, "absolute"
>> isn't equivalent to "not relative", and that seems counter
>> intuitive.
>
>Maybe, but it does seem to capture reality on Windows.

At one point we discussed using the name "is_complete" to capture the notion of a complete path, which on multi-rooted operating systems like Windows would mean having both a drive and the root directory. That name seems less likely to cause confusion.

I'll hold a mini-review of the library in a few days so people can look at class filesystem::path as a whole.

--Beman


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