Marcin Kalicinski skrev:
I'll try to shed some light on what has happened to property_tree since review and why it's been dragging.
The allocations problem remains. I have been unable to come up with a scheme that would reduce the number of allocations without compromising simplicty of the library. The key point is that I want to maintain validity of iterators in presence of insertions/erases. This rules out array based containers. The best I can think of is a custom list implementation. That has potential to reduce number of allocations by roughly 30%, which is not enough IMO.
For now, it doesn't really matter IMO. People often find it useful anyway, and move-semantics will probably help a lot when it arrives. I can't remember why it is important to remain iterator validity, but cnosider if it is absolutely necessary. Perhaps validity of references to elements is enough.
On top of that I'm not sure whether the heavy type-parametrization of the library (i.e. lots of template parameters everywhere) is a good thing. It definitely makes it harder to document, use and understand. In all the the feedback I got there is no evidence of anyone actually using these template parameters. So IMO these should be reduced to just the character type. Otherwise the library pretends to be a generic tree container, which it wasn't supposed to be.
Well, it's been a long time since the review, but I think that ew should respect the decisions made after the review. -Thorsten