Re: [boost] [Boost Review] Do property_tree and program_optionsoverlap?

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 11:19:43

"bwood" <brass_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:20060423224436.A5D61B6554B_at_gateway.mailvault.com...
>: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> :>"Ivan Vecerina" <ivec_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>
> :> It's not like boost::serialize currently dominates the world
> :> of persistent storage.
> :
> :So? I see a potencial for it to become a standard like iostreams now.
>
> I'm glad you added the part about iostreams as I think it hits the
> nail on the head.  I agree with Andrei's opinions of iostreams.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_frm/thread
> /86a5a3f804c84ea4/48842ae2fd029ce6?hl=en#48842ae2fd029ce6

I don't have time to read through this huge thread regarding garbage 
collection to search for iostreams related staff, but after his recent 
"performace" in printf article I wouldn't value his opinion in I/O domain 
that much.

> While iostreams is a part of the standard that doesn't mean it
> is a healthy part of it.  I think eventually someone will
> develop something better.

Let's see. Meanwhile I believe iostreams satisfy most of potencial users in 
target domain.

> You've been touting multi_index here as well.

Not at all. If you follow my recent concern with multi_index design I 
actually believe it's lacking.

> I wouldn't balk if you suggested adding it to the standard.

I wouldn't be suggesting anything but I wouldn't balk if somebody will.

Gennadiy