Re: [boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-30 Thread Beman Dawes
At 03:21 AM 4/25/2003, Vladimir Prus wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: Beman, if that's fine with you, I'll code them. Yes, go ahead. Although the concept of extension may be foreign on some operating systems, I think the idea is widespread enough to be worth including. If I understand your

Re: [boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-30 Thread Beman Dawes
At 12:14 AM 4/27/2003, Trevor Taylor wrote: So it sounds to me like the :blat is *not* part of the extension. It sounds like the NT file name is made up of three parts: name, extension and stream. In which case I think it is fine to have functions extension() and change_extension() - they just

Re: [boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-30 Thread Beman Dawes
At 10:08 AM 4/27/2003, Pavel Vozenilek wrote: Trevor Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So it sounds to me like the :blat is *not* part of the extension. It sounds like the NT file name is made up of three parts: name, extension and stream. In which case I think

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-27 Thread Pavel Vozenilek
Trevor Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] So it sounds to me like the :blat is *not* part of the extension. It sounds like the NT file name is made up of three parts: name, extension and stream. In which case I think it is fine to have functions extension() and

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-21 Thread Jason House
Vladimir Prus wrote: Does those alternate streams belong to filesystem library at all? For one thing, the ':' symbols is not allowed anywhere except for root name. For another thing, on all systems but NTFS, bar.baz.blip:blat would be considered as having blip:blat extension, and making the

Re: [boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-21 Thread Beman Dawes
At 09:15 AM 4/21/2003, Vladimir Prus wrote: Jason House wrote: Vladimir Prus wrote: Does those alternate streams belong to filesystem library at all? For one thing, the ':' symbols is not allowed anywhere except for root name. For another thing, on all systems but NTFS, bar.baz.blip:blat

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-18 Thread Vladimir Prus
James Curran wrote: Vladimir Prus wrote: The intent is to get/change the part of leaf name after the first dot. um.. After the FIRST dot or the LAST dot. In Win32, james.m.curran.txt the extention is txt, not m.curran.txt Certainly the last. My existing code uses the last dot,

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-18 Thread Vladimir Prus
Jason House wrote: James Curran wrote: Vladimir Prus wrote: The intent is to get/change the part of leaf name after the first dot. um.. After the FIRST dot or the LAST dot. In Win32, james.m.curran.txt the extention is txt, not m.curran.txt Note too that on

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-17 Thread Carl Daniel
James Curran wrote: Vladimir Prus wrote: The intent is to get/change the part of leaf name after the first dot. um.. After the FIRST dot or the LAST dot. In Win32, james.m.curran.txt the extention is txt, not m.curran.txt Note too that on Windows/NTFS, names like

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-17 Thread Jason House
:blat ??? 1. I have no clue what that would mean 2. Is there any handling of :blat in any way shape or form in the file system stuff? I don't remember seeing any description of that case... Carl Daniel wrote: James Curran wrote: Vladimir Prus wrote: The intent is to get/change the part

[boost] Re: [filesystem] new functions proposals

2003-04-17 Thread Pavel Vozenilek
Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :blat ??? 1. I have no clue what that would mean 2. Is there any handling of :blat in any way shape or form in the file system stuff? I don't remember seeing any description of that case... It means alternate stream of