From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-19 14:46:19
Beman Dawes wrote:
> But Jens, what about the big picture? Are you convinced your overall
> approach is better that XLT? Do you want to continue developing yours?
I believe there is not much difference in the overall approach. I wanted
to get my update out so I don't sit on a bunch of changes. To have some
fun, I also wanted to see how a unified describe() for C-style structs
would look like. Look at the cute operator-overloading syntax
(proposals for a better operator than & accepted) :-)
The problem with XLT at the moment is that it seems to provide the
portable binary representation (GIOP, XDR), but its support for a text
format is lacking. Additionally, I can use a mem_buffer, but I
cannot use iostreams.
As far as I understand it, these items would be main obstacles for
Beman's usage scenario.
> (I'm personally trying to keep my mind open until I understand XLT better
> than I do now. Obviously I'm biased toward your approach due to
> familiarity, but I want to give XLT at least a chance and not reject it
> just because Not Invented Here.)
This is the same with me: I am obviously biased as well :-)
Advantages of XLT are:
- Handles pointers to objects (also has an option for handling
circular data structures)
- Handles fixed-sized C-style arrays
The disadvantages of both approaches are that you need lots of
template instantiation depth and it takes quite a while to
To make my text support really flexible enough for XML or HTML
would need a lot more effort in both approaches, though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk