From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-22 21:00:33
Marcin wrote
> I think I understand your point, although you did not state it directly.
> (Please correct me if I'm wrong) you believe basic_ptree class has some
> value, and meets boost quality standard. On the other hand you think that
> parsers that accompany it do not.
I dont have a strong opinion one way another about the parsers meeting
or not meeting boost standards. I just want to make shur that they get
reviewed
and let the boost members voice there opinions about them.
> However, I'm also sure you are aware of the fact that without _any_
parsers
> the library is quite useless. It might still have some obscure uses, but
at
> least 90% of it is gone.
I'm not aware of this. Please explain why the "property container" is
useless without a parser. This is the critcal reason why I have issues
with this library in its present form. Why is "property container"
different
from other containers such as vector or map in this regard.
> Therefore I can only agree to your proposition if
> at least _one_ parser is included with the library. Which one is another
> issue, but I believe it should be XML.
That may be accaptable. However, its the XML parser that is my main
concern.
That would be the one that I would save for a later review.
> Also please note that while at the moment some parsers may look ugly, it
is
> the implementation that is ugly, not the interface. And implementation can
> be safely improved while the library is already in boost.
Noted.
Tom Brinkman
Boost Review Wizard