"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not sure that it should be the responsibility of the path class to > enforce some notion of portability. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to defer > the portability check, if any, to the point where the path is actually used > in a filesystem operation?
I agree, if only because I could imagine manipulating a bunch of non-legal paths before actually using a legal one. We still have to solve the problem, but at a different place. Beman's singleton stack seems like a reasonable solution. We can argue over what the default portability policy should be, but it almost becomes irrelevant because it is easy to change and forget about it. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
