"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> writes:
That's not clear to me at all. There's no inherent good in avoiding dependencies among Boost libraries. It's a judgement call, based on many factors, including the author's personal preference. You have every right to make that call yourself, but if you're trying to somehow *justify* your decision, IMO so far you haven't said anything that demonstrates it to be the best one.
The reason why ptree does not use multi index is because implementation existed long before I considered submitting to boost, probably before even I knew of multi index existence. It was working well. Later, when I was improving it during pre-review process, I seriously considered using multi-index. But I decided it is not worth throwing everything out.
That's perfectly reasonable, but (through no fault of yours) it misses the point I was trying to make. I guess I should have said, "...that demonstrates it to be the best implementation." All I'm saying is that the extent to which a Boost library implementation should leverage other Boost libraries is not a question that can always be decided based on following simple guidelines, and that if this library is accepted, it's worth revisiting your decision. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com