Beman Dawes wrote:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message news:003501c53b4b$8b6a1b60$6501a8c0@pdimov2...
If you fix the original defect that directory iteration only gives names without attributes, the use of is_directory in iteration loops will be eliminated. We'll then be left with its other uses, which may be easier to analyze.
How would you do that? Change the directory_iterator value_type to std::pair< path, attributes >, or leave directory_iterator alone but provide a stat() overload taking a directory_iterator (which presumably has the attributes cached on systems which provide attributes automatically during directory iteration)?
I've given it some thought, but I think that you are in a better position to choose between these alternatives than I am. Although I'd say that the first option should use a struct { name, attributes, [size...] } value type and not a pair with its nondescriptive first/second members and no room for future extensions. An is_directory( i ) overload is certainly less intrusive in that it allows us to keep the current iterator intact. But (a) is_directory( i ) and is_directory( *i ) are too close to each other and the users may mistakenly use the second form when they mean the first, and (b) I'm not sure whether we should strive to keep the current iterator. The reason I don't feel confident in choosing an alternative is that I don't know how important it is for the value_type of the iterator to be a path.