From: Marcin Kalicinski (kalita_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 16:00:27
> I haven't used program_options yet. But if I understand correctly both
> libraries seem to support storing and accessing data with strings that
> might describe some kind of hierarchy. This seems to be the core idea of
> both libraries - is this correct?
> Then it wouldn't matter much what container is used. However a generic
> tree which can store data hierarchically probably makes most sense. If I
> understand correctly both libraries could make use of such a class?
I think generic tree container is material for another library. Whether
property_tree should be based on it or not is a matter of internal
implementation, and generally of little interest to users. The biggest value
of property_tree is in its easy to use interface, that should not be
compromised, if at all possible. I have been already reassured in this view
by quite many people who took their time to review the library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk