Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-11 05:43:28

Next message: Reece Dunn: "Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting"
In reply to: Marcin Kalicinski: "[boost] Property tree rev.5"
Next in thread: Klaus Nowikow: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"
Reply: Klaus Nowikow: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"
Reply: Caleb Epstein: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"
Reply: Marcin Kalicinski: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"

"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Property tree library revision 5 (review version) is now in the boost vault.
> Documentation can be viewed online at http://kaalus.atspace.com/ptree

What is the rationale for using the word "property" here?

Why is this data structure not a more generic tree? It seems as
though forcing the data on a tree node to be a specialization of
basic_string is needlessly limiting.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

Next message: Reece Dunn: "Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting"
Previous message: David Abrahams: "Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting"
In reply to: Marcin Kalicinski: "[boost] Property tree rev.5"
Next in thread: Klaus Nowikow: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"
Reply: Klaus Nowikow: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"
Reply: Caleb Epstein: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"
Reply: Marcin Kalicinski: "Re: [boost] Property tree rev.5"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk