Been on vacation for a couple of weeks and missed the filesystem mini-review deadline. Here are som quick comments anyway: - What is your evaluation of the design? I think that the general design is very nice but I have a few issues: 1. The basic_path template parameter "String" defines the type used to store the path internally but at the same time it also defines the type used for construction and operator/. Consider the following example: I want to store the path in shared memory and therefore use a flex_string type with a 200 character internal buffer. Problem here is that now the path can only be created from this 200 character flex_string and not from std::string. One solution might be to let the constructor and operator/ work with ranges but it might create problems with copy constructor. template <typename RangeT> explicit basic_path(const RangeT& str) { append(begin(str), end(str)) } 2. All operations work with std::(w)string. When the internal string type is not std::string a conversion is necessary. In most cases the charcater conversion should be trivial but since a std::string is required a copy can't be avoided. In the example I used above, the flex_string must be copied into a std::string for each operation even if the character string is identical. Why not base operations on null terminated strings (const char*) or a pair of iterators instead. 3. Comparison between paths doesn't use locale. The paths are not treated as plain characters since a lexicographical compare is made. But the individual elements are treated as plain characters and the internal string type's operator< is used. This is a bit contradicting. I think the comparison operators should compare the elements in a locale dependent way. - What is your evaluation of the implementation no comment - What is your evaluation of the documentation? Very good. - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? Haven't tried the i18n version yet. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I have used the original filesystem library for approx 1 year and I have followed the i18n development closly. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? yes, but I have only used the windows part (i.e. no portability). - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? yes.