> On 11/24/2020 4:32 AM, Kristian Ivarsson via Cygwin wrote: > > > all the std::filesystem implementations I've seen for Windows > > The implementation on top of Cygwin is not "for Windows", it's "for > Cygwin", i.e., "for Posix". And for Cygwin that's the right thing to do. > And that's where we keep talking at cross purposes.
Maybe it is the right thing to do, but what is your take of why it must be so (all the way) ? I also do understand that it have several advantages in the implementation of std::filesystem but it also imply an extra layer of abstraction to the underlaying platform, but to just remove the _CYGWIN_ macro when building it would make std::filesystem to not understand /cygdrive at all (and I guess that would confuse other users;-) so I guess it would require some more sophisticated implementation (or extend the number of exceptions already existing in the underlaying Cygwin-Posix-implementation) Best regards, Kristian > Best wishes - Eliot Moss -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
