Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++ Filesystem Technical Specification Approved

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • C++ Filesystem Technical Specification Approved

    Phoronix: C++ Filesystem Technical Specification Approved

    The C++ file-system technical specification has been unanimously approved for the ISO C++ committee...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTg3OTk

  • #2
    omg thanks, looking toward using this!

    Comment


    • #3
      Code:
      dot:
                  The filename consisting solely of a single period character (.).
      
      dot-dot:
                  The filename consisting solely of two period characters (..).
      My eyes are bleeding.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by c117152 View Post
        Code:
        dot:
                    The filename consisting solely of a single period character (.).
        
        dot-dot:
                    The filename consisting solely of two period characters (..).
        My eyes are bleeding.
        You mean because they didn't use semantically meaningful names such as 'self' and 'parent'?

        Comment


        • #5
          What bothers me with this standards is that it seems to focus on a particular conception of how file systems should be, but might leave in the dust experimental stuff like semantic filesystems, or systems that do not have the concept of a file/folder hierarchy...

          Comment


          • #6
            About time for a copy_file function in the standard. Anyone know if C will get one soon?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
              What bothers me with this standards is that it seems to focus on a particular conception of how file systems should be, but might leave in the dust experimental stuff like semantic filesystems, or systems that do not have the concept of a file/folder hierarchy...
              What bothers me is the notion that semantic systems are "better" or should be considered for standardization- they're experimental. Pretty much all of what you talk to has the same status overall.

              That means NO INCLUSION. Get it worked out and effective where it makes sense and the standard will be extended. If you think that they need to be accounted for, you misunderstand what a standard is supposed to be about.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                What bothers me with this standards is that it seems to focus on a particular conception of how file systems should be, but might leave in the dust experimental stuff like semantic filesystems, or systems that do not have the concept of a file/folder hierarchy...
                <sarcasm>
                They should rename it to "thing", let's make a standard for "thing"s, and then it'll be capable of representing every"thing".
                </sarcasm>

                Comment


                • #9
                  symlink, hardlink? Why not just use the real POSIX API if you are just going to make a POSIX specific API?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CrystalGamma View Post
                    You mean because they didn't use semantically meaningful names such as 'self' and 'parent'?
                    Using 'self' and 'parent' in a grammar definition is a bad idea because those words are keywords in several languages. Translating the grammar document into the parser would then require using names which are different in the program and in the document. That leads to confusion.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X