From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-17 23:54:08
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
>If there are technical reasons why the library cannot be extended to
>do this than I would definitely vote to reject. It sounds like that's
>what you and Robert are saying, but I don't understand why you think
I have to admit I have only a cursory knowledge of XML. I bought
a book just consider this question. When I tried to envision rendering
things like stl containers of polymorphic pointers to objects
with diamond inheritance so of which are repeated into XML
my imagination failed me. Oh then there is the data name - not readily
available in C++. So I rebuffed requests for assurances that
this system can be extended to XML.
As I do now.
This question came up before in the context of a proposed alternative
design that purportadly would be extensible to cover XML. I did
demonstrate that this system was at least as powerful as the
suggested alternative so that wasn't an argument for the alternative.
If you need an apriori guarentee that this is extensible to XML
in order to vote for the library then your decision is easy. I don't
believe anyone can give such a guarentee for this case. Of course,
if someone does manage to do this - great. But until someone
does, you should vote against it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk