From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-06 07:25:21
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>> I am always in favor of
>>>> designs which are clear and understandable over all other
>>>> considerations.
>>>
>>> And what's so un-understantable about boost::path which has both narrow
>>> and wide methods?
>>
>> I'm finding it hard to argue with that idea.
>
> You mean it's hard to argue with the idea to have
>
> class path {
> path(char*)
> path(wchar_t*);
> }
>
Yes.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com