Beman Dawes wrote: > At 01:40 PM 8/14/2003, Peter Dimov wrote: > > > >I am not sure that it should be the responsibility of the path > class to >enforce some notion of portability. Wouldn't it be more > appropriate to >defer the portability check, if any, to the point > where the path is >actually used in a filesystem operation? > > That's too late. A real path is often made up of some native elements > (which the portability check doesn't apply to) and some portable > elements (which the portability check should be applied to). > > The earlier the error can be detected, the better. Also, a path is > only constructed once, but may be use multiple times.
[...] > That would be easy if we accepted the native platform as the default, > and portable cases had to be specially coded. But my interest is in > portable semantics as the default. I must be missing something. What is a "portable" path useful for? A portable path _grammar_ (element sequence separated by '/') is certainly useful, it allows me to write portable _code_ that deals with paths. Portable path _data_ is a different story. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost