I'm voting NO on "property tree". I'm not persuaded that this library should be added to boost. Here is my review: * What is your evaluation of the design? Interesting. The "Property Tree" library attempts to meet a real need that I have had. The design appears to be appears to be adequate at first, but the more time I spent with working through the examples, the less I liked it. * What is your evaluation of the implementation? I think the implementation is pretty good. Overall, the author(s) have utilized modern c++ and established boost's "best-practices", including using boost::spirit for the "xml" parser. I'm not sure why he didn't use boost::spirit or boost::xpressive for the other parsers though. * What is your evaluation of the documentation? Inadequate, at least compared to the better documented boost libraries. More work is need here. * What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Each individual part of the library is very useful. * Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? gcc. No problems. * How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? I studied documentation and the source code for a couple of hours. There is variety of interesting stuff hidden in this library. I ran the examples and created a couple of my own. * Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes * Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? No I'm voting NO on "property tree". I'm not persuaded that this library should be added to boost. It should be broken up into seperate boost::spirit or boost::xpressive grammers and submitted seperately. Grouping all this stuff under the "property tree" library is convenient, but not up to the standards of a boost library.