Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-27 13:49:16

Jose wrote:

> * The weak points:
> a) The container
> The use of a generic tree container has not been seriously considered. The
> argument against using a generic container is that it would complicate the
> library.
> I don't agree. For a specific example check the tree.hh library: an STL-like
> C++ tree class
> This library provides a generic tree
> container
> and well thought-out interfaces. It is as easy or easier to use than the PT
> lib

Also for setting configuration data and simlpe xml-files?

Mind you, many people would like a generic tree in boost, but few has
said property_tree should be one too. And the interface of
that tree is rather large (which of course is handy whn you need that).

The fact that keys are duplicated in a map to provide fast lookup kinda
rules out it to be a generic tree container where overhead is not

> b) The parsers (library vs utilities)
> It is not clear whether the parsers are utilities or whether the PT lib is
> supposed
> to provide some framework to build specific parsers.
> E.g.
> * How easy is to use this existing file format with ":" separator
> name1: value1
> name2: value2
> * How easy is to use a more advanced format, e.g. a CSS file
> h1 { font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; }
> { ... }
> This also should be explained in the docs.

Not only should it be explained in the docs, but
it should be decided if this is what the library is intended to do.
And if yes, how would that framework look like?


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