"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase@gmail.com> writes:
I took another look at the library this morning and I agree with Jeff Garland that this library has potential.
Howewver, it is hard to get my head around this library becouse it contains two very different things: 1) a recursive property-tree container and 2) six parsers to populate this container.
I'm not a low-level container author so I cant speak to the merits pro/con of this implementation of a recursive property-tree. Nevertheless, I would like the review to focus on this, without regard to the parser grammers.
I think that my objections could be resolved by removing the six-parsers from the review. Assuming the "property-tree" container is approved, lets schedule another review for these six-parsers. Either all of them at once, or one at a time.
If the library author would be willing to delay the review the parser grammers until later this year, I might be persuaded to give this library another review.
Isn't that like objecting to the serialization library on the grounds that it has code for serializing various datatypes, plus implementations of various different archive formats (parsers/generators)? I don't see anything wrong in principle with the idea that such a library should come with exemplars of the readers and writers for its data structure. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com