Boost logo

Boost :

From: Boris (boriss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 04:21:27

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> [...] Option 3:
> Generic facility to manipulate hieratical data with permanent storage
> support.
> ==========================
> My main objection in this domain is that author decided that his
> particular data structure would be good enough for all usages. The
> word "particular" is main offender here. I don't believe any
> "particular" data structure would be good enough. Some novice users may
> use simple structure with class
> Leaf and class Brunch. Some prefer generic tree one. Some need
> compile time polymorphism only. Some could use runtime one. Some
> Would use boost::variant as value.
> IMO save/load side of the library like this would need to be made to
> work with any data structure satisfying some concept. The same
> applies to access methods (This is the reason why you need to switch
> to free function based interfaces)

I agree. That's why I asked in another thread if the access methods are
loosely or tightly coupled with property_tree. Marcin himself wrote in
another message that using property_tree "is a matter of internal
implementation". Adding some more flexibility here would be nice and seems
to be possible.


> [...]

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