On 17/10/2021 07:53, Vinnie Falco wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:10 AM Phil Endecott wrote:
I would be very interested to see a comparison of how your decomposition of paths into segments, and the reverse, compares to what std::filesystem::path does, and rationale for the differences.
To be honest I have no idea, I have never used std::filesystem to any meaningful extent.
Getting back to this point, as I mentioned in another branch it looks like {std,boost}::filesystem breaks down "/foo/bar/baz.htm" to { "/", "foo/", "bar/", "baz.htm" }. Like it or hate it, this is the standard now, and it's likely that people would expect that Boost.Url would use similar segmentation. On a related note, you should strongly consider cross-compatibility with {std,boost}::filesystem::path anyway, since inevitably an URL-parsing library will hit one of the following scenarios sooner or later: - conversion of an absolute file:/// uri to a filesystem path and back - conversion of a relative uri path (only) to a relative filesystem path and back (or perhaps better: conversion of [absolute uri, base uri, base path] to absolute path) While you could get away with doing the second kind of interop only with complete strings, having an explicit method for it is better as it allows you to encourage security checks such as considering it illegal to use a relative path that would escape the base path.