Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
[...] Option 3: Generic facility to manipulate hieratical data with permanent storage support. ==========================
My main objection in this domain is that author decided that his particular data structure would be good enough for all usages. The word "particular" is main offender here. I don't believe any "particular" data structure would be good enough. Some novice users may use simple structure with class Leaf and class Brunch. Some prefer generic tree one. Some need compile time polymorphism only. Some could use runtime one. Some Would use boost::variant as value. IMO save/load side of the library like this would need to be made to work with any data structure satisfying some concept. The same applies to access methods (This is the reason why you need to switch to free function based interfaces)
I agree. That's why I asked in another thread if the access methods are loosely or tightly coupled with property_tree. Marcin himself wrote in another message that using property_tree "is a matter of internal implementation". Adding some more flexibility here would be nice and seems to be possible. Boris
[...]