Stefan Seefeld wrote:
So we agree then, fine. I suggest 'append_comment("foo")' while someone else proposed to overload the 'append' name, using something like 'append(comment("foo"))' instead, which would imply explicit node creation, as opposed to nodes being created by factories (such as document and element).
It is possible to support append( comment( "foo" )) *and* factories: template< typename NodeType > struct node_constructor { typedef NodeType type; std::string value; node_constructor( const std::string & str ): value( str ) { } }; node_constructor< comment_factory > comment( const std::string & str ) { return node_constructor< comment_factory >( str ); } node_constructor< cdata_factory > cdata( const std::string & str ) { return node_constructor< cdata_factory >( str ); } struct element { template< typename Factory > void append( const node_constructor< Factory > & cons ) { // call the factory here... Factory::make_node( ..., cons.value ); } }; This would make it easier to support push_back( cdata( "foo<bar>" )), etc. without having _comment, _cdata, etc. variants for each insertion function. - Reece