On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 19:49, Brian Gray wrote: > On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 12:35 AM, Yitzhak Sapir wrote: > > My feeling from all these examples is that a path string is inherently > > specific to the system for which it was specified, and can't really be > > ported to anywhere else. Much like a string is usually inherently > > specific in its encoding to the system-specified encoding. However, > > the filesystem library can provide a portable way to manipulate this > > system specific path, much like the string library provides a portable > > way to manipulate the system-specific encoded string. In view of > > this, why try for a "portable path" at all? > > This may have been covered already, but I would go further and assert > that the very concept of a string path is non-portable.
It does not have to be. It is legal on both Windows and *nix'es to have spaces in paths and filenames. This does not make it a good thing. I like that when I create paths that they are portable and I can use this to validate user input as well. When I have to traverse existing paths then I expect to have to use native paths. /ikh _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
