Ivan Vecerina wrote:
The only adequate solution I see to this problem is to provide a minimum set of member functions. Then document well a core set of primitive operations (non-members in my preference). And if we want to provide a "simple interface for dummies", put it in a sub-namespace ( ptree::path ) so those who want to use your default simple interface can include it & find it there.
Marcin Kalicinski wrote:
I expect get() to be by far most often used function from the three (at least in my experience using the library).
I think that the path access get/put interface is what makes the code genereted by using this library clean and easy to understand. And is the principal mechanism that permitted to get a lot of functionality with only a few lines of code. If this way of accesing the data, or another with similar concept behind, is not a first part of the ptree... this container will be just another one in the world. I really like "simple interface for dummies", even more if they can fullfill my needs in a dificulty level scalable way. I feel this about the get/put actual interface of the ptree. (plus another enchacements that were proposed in the list)