At 10:08 PM 8/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote: >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.
It isn't just Windows - multi-rooted file systems with named roots are a feature of many operating systems. Not to mention URI/URL's.
Early versions of the interface had only the three decomposition functions you mention above. IIRC, they even had those names. Almost immediately users came up with cases where they needed to distinguish between the root name and the root directory.
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
