I need a filesystem library for use with a C++11-capable compiler or a C++14-capable one - so it can't be be from C++17.
Now, I know that the filesystem library going into C++17 is based based on Boost::Filesystem; but - are they similar enough for me to use the Boost library and then seamlessly switch to the standard version at a later time, without changing more than, say, a using statement? Or are there (minor/significant) differences between the two? I know that for the case of variant, the Boost and the standard library versions differ quite a bit.
There are a number of differences. Some were, I believe, Boost changes that were never propagated. For example, there is no path.filename_is_dot() query (as discussed below, it would be less useful in std::filesystem anyway).
There was also a good bit of late-breaking news on this front:
file_size for a directory or device filefilename(), normalization, and relative/absolute conversions redefined (examples for POSIX):
path("foo/.").lexically_normal()=="foo/" (is the opposite in Boost)path("foo/").filename()=="" (is path(".") in Boost)remove_filename() leaves the trailing slash and is thus idempotent (it assigns parent_path() in Boost)path(".profile").extension()=="" (is the whole name in Boost)path decompositions and combinations can preserve things like alternate data stream names that are normally invisiblepath("foo")/"/bar"=="/bar" (is path("foo/bar") in Boost), which allows composing relative file names with others (absolute or relative) and replaces Boost's absolute()system_complete() (which takes only one argument) is renamed to absolute()canonical() thus takes only one argument (fixed in a DR)lexically_relative() handles .. and root elements correctlypermissions() takes more arguments (Boost combines them into a bitmask)Note that Boost.Filesystem v4 is under development and is supposed to be C++17-compatible (but therefore incompatible in many respects with v3).