From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-26 13:51:59
Hamish Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>And I don't use a 'document' class, as that is managed implicitely
>>>>by my dom::document_ptr:
>>>>dom::document_ptr document; // create new document;
>>>>dom::document_ptr doc(document); // create second reference to it
>>>>dom::document_ptr doc2 = document.clone(); // clone it, i.e. make deep
>>>This is not consistent with the standard library or C++ in general. It
>>>will seem strange that the pointer class
>>>1) Does not require dereferencing
>>would you say the same if the class name was spelled 'document_ref'
> 1 & 4 would be ok, but 3 would stand and having an 'operator bool' would
> be added to the list.
>>>3) Has a constructor such as document_ptr( "config.xml" )
>>>4) Has member functions such as write_to_file
>>>The alternative would allow both...
>>>boost::shared_ptr< dom::document > doc( new dom::document() );
>>>boost::shared_ptr< dom::document > doc1( doc );
>>>dom::document doc2( *doc1 );
>>>and if the 'doc1' reference was non-owning...
>>>dom::document doc(); // Create new doc
>>>dom::document & doc1( doc ); // Second reference
>>>dom::document doc2( doc1 ); // Deep copy
>>right, but given such an approach, what would nodes return in their
>>'parent()' method ?
> The parent is always an element (is that right?) so it would return
> element_ptr or element_ref.
yes. Sorry, I meant to ask what 'document()' would return.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk