At 01:54 PM 11/12/2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 02:20 AM 11/12/2004, Vladimir Prus wrote:
I'd be much happier with design like this:
class path { public: path(char*); path(wchar_t*); string file_string() const; wstring file_wstring() const; };
A single path class approach is really interesting. Note, however, that it is a good bit more complicated than your synopsis above because of the need to provide templated member functions to handle user defined types.
Is there _really_ such a need?
That's a good question. I personally think the need for UDT support is too marginal to worry about. I've just posted a query to the C++ Library Working Group's reflector to see if anyone there has strong feelings one way or another. Thanks, --Beman