From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-23 08:51:16
"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I took another look at the library this morning and I agree with Jeff
> that this library has potential.
> Howewver, it is hard to get my head around this
> library becouse it contains two very
> different things: 1) a recursive property-tree container and
> 2) six parsers to populate this container.
> I'm not a low-level container author so I cant speak to the
> merits pro/con of this implementation of a recursive property-tree.
> Nevertheless, I would like the review to focus on this, without regard to
> the parser grammers.
> 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.
Isn't that like objecting to the serialization library on the grounds
that it has code for serializing various datatypes, plus
implementations of various different archive formats
I don't see anything wrong in principle with the idea that such a
library should come with exemplars of the readers and writers for its
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com