On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Alexander Lamaison <awl03@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 20:04:26 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Alexander Lamaison <awl03@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:07:34 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
* Any other comments or suggestions?
Some code I have wraps a SFTP library that returns paths as UTF-8 strings. These need to be converted to the local code page before displaying to the user. My original plan was to typedef basic_path with a traits class of my own that I could imbue with a specific locale to do the conversion.
With FSv3 the only way to do this seems to be path::imbue() which imbue *all* paths, globally. Or am I missing something?
Yep, there is another way. First convert the UTF-8 string to a UTF-16 string using software of your choice. Then construct a boost::filesystem::path with the UTF-16 string as an argument. Alternately, assign the UTF-16 string to a boost::filesystem::path.
Say the resulting path is named p. Then p.string() will return a std::string containing the path in native format, native codepage.
Does that solve your problem?
Possibly, I'll get back to you once I've actually tried implementing something.
My next questions related to the Windows API A/W variants. Another library I've written many generic functions that wrap these kinds of API calls by taking a basic_path and selecting the A or W variant depending on whether the caller passes a basic_string<char> or a basic_string<wchar_t>. I imagine this is going to be hard to port to v3 if I still want the caller to be able to select the A or W variant.
That's essentially what the v2 implementation of operations functions did. See libs/filesystem/src/operations.cpp. Life got much simpler when I switched to just using the W variants. I'm sorry I ever messed with the A variants.
Is there any reason why I should even care about being able to call the A variants? My original theory was that someone could write a program that always used basic_string<char> and could use that on Win9x but I've not actually tested that theory.
Are you willing to compromise your design and implementation so that someone could use Win9x? I'm not:-) Thanks for the comments and questions! --Beman