Boost logo

Boost :

From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-22 20:23:16

Sorry, But I cant follow you in the thread so I have to put this at the top
level of the thread. I am not at home right now.

> I understood it perfectly well. However, you also stated that the
> parsers should come in at a later point. Thus my point still applies, if
> only for limited time. However, that time is crucial. If there is a
> Boost release (1.35) that includes the tree, but not the parser, people
> might get used to that "useless property_tree thing" and not care to
> look at its improved value in 1.36. Bad reputations tend to stick.

Poor points. Getting this library thing ready by version 1.35 or any other
version is my last concern. I want it to be correct. Its not acceptable
that that this fairly large library will not get the full review that is
necessary for a boost library. The scope of this library is too diverse for
it that too occur in only a 10 day review period. It is very, very common
for libraries to need a second or even a third review. I think that this
library falls in that category of libraries that will need multiple reviews.

> Also, the way I understood your post, your objection to the parsers was
> that they are a completely separate thing from the tree and thus should
> not be reviewed together. I find this objection simply wrong. The
> parsers are a very important part of the property_tree library, and IMO
> it's just its inappropriate name that makes them seem misplaced.

As this seems to be opinion that you share with one or two others, please
educate me. Why does the "property tree" require a parser. I just dont get
it. How is the "property tree" container different from the vector and map
containers, which almost certainly did not have parsers included along with
them when they were added to the standard. What makes the "property tree"
different from other containers that dont require parsers. I dont recall a
single example of a container in C++ that had to have a parser.

I suspect that those of you who want the parsers included with this library
are just trying to sneek an XML parser through the review process without a
full review. Please tell me that I'm wrong on this point.

This library will eventually get accepted, I'm fairly sure of that, possibly
even portions of the library will be approved this time around. What is
your rush to get this one through. Lets take our time and get it right.

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