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).