Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-20 14:42:47

On 4/20/06, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > e.g. the current Property List library being reviewed:
> > - shouldn't it be part of the existing program options library (if its
> > intended usage is similar to program options library vs a generic tree
> > container) ?
> Just to get rid of some confusion here: The Property Tree Library does
> not have the same goal as the program option library and the two
> libraries are very different. The Property Tree Library does allow you
> to build quick option parsers, but this is not the main motivation for
> the library, and it is perfectly valid for a library to include such a
> facility in the review process. If the majority of reviewers actually
> think it is better to use the Program Option Library we can always
> exclude this particular part of The Property Tree Library. That said, my
> pre-review assessment as review manager was that the overlap was minimal.

In the case you raise, I am not saying some functionality should be excluded
but maybe the PT lib should obsolete the PO lib. The PT lib goal is broad
(compared to PO lib)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at