On 7/11/07, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
on Wed Jul 11 2007, "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev-AT-chezphil.org> wrote:
I think that using subclasses is the key to making this sort of code easier on the eye:
struct firstname: public element { firstname(n): element("firstname",n) {}; };
etc.
You're already headed off in a harder-to-read direction from my point of view.
As well as a harder-to-implement direction. Having to make a struct for every tag you implement seems a little user-unfriendly. For a constrained format (like SVG) I could agree, but I think for Boost.XML library, there should be easy naming. Splitting the difference (or so I hope) between easy trees/expressiveness and standard syntax, how about something like this? root.push_front ( tag("Article Info", (title ? (comment("This title was moved"), title) : NULL) (tag("author", (tag("firstname", "Joe")) (tag("surname", "Random")) )) ) );