Re: [boost] [property_tree review] Making the interface leaner, concretely...

From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-23 12:52:40

Ivan Vecerina wrote:
> The only adequate solution I see to this problem is to provide
> a minimum set of member functions.  Then document well a core
> set of primitive operations (non-members in my preference).
> And if we want to provide a "simple interface for dummies",
> put it in a sub-namespace ( ptree::path ) so those who want
> to use your default simple interface can include it & find
> it there.

Marcin Kalicinski wrote:
> I expect get() to be by far most often used function from the three (at
> least in my experience using the library).

I think that the path access get/put interface is what makes the code
genereted by using this library clean and easy to understand. And is
the principal mechanism that permitted to get a lot of functionality with
only a few lines of code. If this way of accesing the data, or another with
similar concept behind, is not a first part of the ptree... this container
will be just another one in the world.
I really like "simple interface for dummies", even more if they can fullfill
my needs in a dificulty level scalable way. I feel this about the get/put
actual interface of the ptree. (plus another enchacements that were
proposed in the list)