From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 20:04:13
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:005701c55008$0eacc010$6401a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> Rob Stewart wrote:
>> I don't like the status()/symlink_status() split. How about
>> overloading like this:
>>
>> struct follow_symlink_t { };
>> extern const follow_symlink_t follow_symlink;
>>
>> status_flags status(path const &);
>> status_flags status(path const &, follow_symlink_t);
>
> FWIW, I'm in favor of the current design.
Rationale?
--Beman