On 11 Jan 2014 at 23:16, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
The point of discussing the draft here is to make sure Beman, and any other interested parties, agree the changes make sense, and to get important feedback before I get too far ahead. Already your few questions have made the role of the path classes much clearer in my head, so thanks!
I would be an interested party. Sometime in the future I'd like the ability to add to C++ filesystem namespaces which are implemented by a process-local abstraction layer which transforms high level filesystem operations into something else. This sounds not dissimilar to what you're doing. I would be particularly interested in being able to substantially extend the file path syntax with useful new capabilities. Like VMS did. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/