Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Should we (do we?) have some spreadsheet enumerating various filesystem >> features, quirks, and limitations for whatever systems we can find, and >> using that as a reference regarding how to organize features like >> paths, file references, forks, or whatever else? It might help us to >> back out of the code and re-examine the problem domain regardless of >> the current state of Boost. > > I've been thinking that maybe the best way to provide for portable > paths is to have a bunch of flags that you can set. So when you push > something onto Beman's singleton stack, you can, for example, set the > NTFS and VMS flags if you only care about those filesystems. > > However, that makes it difficult to extend to customized portability > restrictions. That might require some kind of function stack within > each element of the singleton stack. Then you can push the NTFS and > VMS checkers onto that stack within the stack.
I _really_ hope we don't have any singleton stack which affects path validation. It sounds like a nightmare for any application involving threads. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
