From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-20 14:42:47
On 4/20/06, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > e.g. the current Property List library being reviewed:
> > - shouldn't it be part of the existing program options library (if its
> > intended usage is similar to program options library vs a generic tree
> > container) ?
>
> Just to get rid of some confusion here: The Property Tree Library does
> not have the same goal as the program option library and the two
> libraries are very different. The Property Tree Library does allow you
> to build quick option parsers, but this is not the main motivation for
> the library, and it is perfectly valid for a library to include such a
> facility in the review process. If the majority of reviewers actually
> think it is better to use the Program Option Library we can always
> exclude this particular part of The Property Tree Library. That said, my
> pre-review assessment as review manager was that the overlap was minimal.
In the case you raise, I am not saying some functionality should be excluded
but maybe the PT lib should obsolete the PO lib. The PT lib goal is broad
(compared to PO lib)