From: Marcin Kalicinski (kalita_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-22 17:25:33
> I think that my objections could be resolved by removing the six-parsers
> from the review. Assuming the "property-tree" container is approved,
> lets schedule another review for these six-parsers. Either all of them at
> once, or one at a time.
> If the library author would be willing to delay the review the parser
> grammers until later this year, I might be persuaded to give this library
> another review.
I think I understand your point, although you did not state it directly.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong) you believe basic_ptree class has some
value, and meets boost quality standard. On the other hand you think that
parsers that accompany it do not. If this is the case, I quite understand
your point of view and the proposal you are making. I definitely agree with
you that data structure is more refined and mature than the parsers.
However, I'm also sure you are aware of the fact that without _any_ parsers
the library is quite useless. It might still have some obscure uses, but at
least 90% of it is gone. Therefore I can only agree to your proposition if
at least _one_ parser is included with the library. Which one is another
issue, but I believe it should be XML. More adventurous users will still be
able to use rest of the parsers from boost-sandbox, while they are improved
to meet boost quality standard and be reviewed.
Also please note that while at the moment some parsers may look ugly, it is
the implementation that is ugly, not the interface. And implementation can
be safely improved while the library is already in boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk