From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-21 23:57:59
"Ivan Vecerina" wrote
> "Andy Little" wrote
> : "Andy Little" wrote
> : >
> : >Did you consider a generic tree design? If so
> : > why did you reject it in favour of this one?
> : Just to refresh... The above is the most interesting and yet unanswered
> : about property tree for me. Am I missing something? Is this a silly
> question? Is
> : it too trivial to answer?
> I would agree that this is an interesting point.
> - ptree integrates too many member functions that really should be
> non-member utilities (e.g. path solving, value<->ptree conversions)
> Fixing this is a must IMHO, I wouldn't want to accept another
> std::string like beast (too much built-in, yet never enough, so you
> end up with an inconsistent mix of member & non-member interfaces)
> - in some ways, since it is already all-templated, maybe it could be
> made even more general (e.g. boost::any based values or nodes?)
> On the other hand, loading a DOM-like tree structure into memory,
> and being able to manipulate it, is I think quite a common need.
Another common concept for Property Tree is the Path functionality of
Boost.Filesystem. A Filesystem is AFAICS directly representable in a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk