On 2/25/04 3:36 PM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Phil Richards wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:36:16 -0500, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
and yet...I associate 'io' with reading and writing, i.e. things related to some *content*, while in boost::filesystem we are more talking about content *containers* and how to deal with them.
I know what you mean - I had the same feeling. However, taking a step back and thinking "this namespace is the generic place to put things to do with I/O" made me less bothered about it. The class names within the namespace should, of course, make sense - but filesystems only make sense when viewed in the larger context of I/O.
only if you take 'I/O' in a broad sense. I may check file stats for a lot of reasons beside I/O, such as to execute a file, or finding out where I am. In C++ I usually associate I/O only with streambuffers and streams.
I was thinking this way too when coming up with the I/O namespace. But I don't object strongly to moving the file-system stuff there. (So in the voting number system, I'm -0.) -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com