On 04/08/10 12:58, Stefan Seefeld wrote: [snip]
For the boost.xml library I'm working on I plan to use something akin to boost.variant as the return type of an xpath query.
What does boost.variant lack that leads you to create something akin to it?
I don't think that the XPath specification should dictate a type hierarchy on a C++ implementation.
What is there about the XPath specification that makes any type hierarchy for modelling it less suitable than using something akin to boost.variant? You see, I'm wondering because using type hierarchies and virtual functions has been touted as a great advantage of OO programming; yet, it apparently lacks something which you need. I'd like to understand what that is. Apparently you're not the only one that's found a similar lack, as shown by the following thread on the spirit-general ml around Mar 4, 2010: http://preview.tinyurl.com/y4fk5rf Thanks Stefan. -regards, Larry