Beman Dawes wrote:
At 01:54 PM 11/12/2004, Peter Dimov wrote:
Beman Dawes wrote:
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.
The interesting thing is that I can see a need for a generic path library (filesystem-independent). It even makes perfect sense for this library to be templated on the character type (because the operations do not depend on a specific type) and if I squint just right I see some benefits in adding a 'class Tr = path_traits<Ch>' parameter that will supply the path separator character and the escape character (if any). However I don't see how such a generic path library can be separated from the filesystem code. The generic grammar is simply not expressive enough to handle all native path quirks.