Marcin wrote
I think I understand your point, although you did not state it directly. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) you believe basic_ptree class has some value, and meets boost quality standard. On the other hand you think that parsers that accompany it do not.
However, I'm also sure you are aware of the fact that without _any_
I dont have a strong opinion one way another about the parsers meeting or not meeting boost standards. I just want to make shur that they get reviewed and let the boost members voice there opinions about them. parsers
the library is quite useless. It might still have some obscure uses, but at least 90% of it is gone.
I'm not aware of this. Please explain why the "property container" is useless without a parser. This is the critcal reason why I have issues with this library in its present form. Why is "property container" different from other containers such as vector or map in this regard.
Therefore I can only agree to your proposition if at least _one_ parser is included with the library. Which one is another issue, but I believe it should be XML.
That may be accaptable. However, its the XML parser that is my main concern. That would be the one that I would save for a later review.
Also please note that while at the moment some parsers may look ugly, it is the implementation that is ugly, not the interface. And implementation can
be safely improved while the library is already in boost.
Noted. Tom Brinkman Boost Review Wizard