David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What about: > > > > assert( p.branch_path().empty() ); > > > > Isn't that closer to what you are trying to express? > > I guess so. I didn't see branch_path().
BTW, it would feel much more natural to me if it were path root() const; path branch() const; path leaf() const; but because of the portable-ization of non-portable windows path constructs, I think something this simple is impossible. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
