>Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> At 08:31 PM 8/19/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >> > >> >It surprised me a bit that leaf returns a string instead of a path. >> >> The rule isn't entirely obvious. If a decomposition function can >> possibly return more that one element, it is returned as type path. If >> at most a single element is returned, the return type is std::string. > >It may not surprise you, but the easy translation between paths and >strings really rubs me the wrong way. Practically the only reason I'm >using the path class at all is to increase the level of abstraction >and self-documentation of the code I'm writing -- I think it's foolish >to pass around something called std::string when it really represents >a file path. A single component of a path is still a path, and it >shouldn't devolve into a string. > >I'm rewriting some Java code in C++ which has a "Directory" >abstraction, that lets you open files in that directory. I want those >functions take path parameters. I want to assert that they're leaf >paths. Having to write: > > assert(path(p.leaf()) == p) > >or > > assert(p.leaf() == p.string()) > >instead of: > > assert(p == p.leaf()) > >really feels odd to me.
What about:
assert( p.branch_path().empty() );
Isn't that closer to what you are trying to express?
>> >Shouldn't >> > >> > "foo/bar"/p.leaf() >> > >> >work? >> >> Yes, via the automatic conversion. I just added a test case to >> path_test to verify that. Yes, it does work. I expect there would >> have been scads of bug reports if it didn't work. > >Whoa. What code and compiler did you test that with?
Ah! I corrected your code first so that "foo/bar" was a path. There is no operator/ for string arguments, of course.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
