Hi all! Those who are interested in my Confogurator, perhaps it will be interesting. String-based interface that I used was a bad idea, because probably errors will be detected only at runtime. Moreover, it was a my mistake to use location of option in configuration file as identifier in user's code. It was a very stupid design mistake. Templates and preprocessor - and here is what I got: Example config: ------------------------------------- <System> <UdpServer> Host = 127.0.0.1 Port = 100 </UdpServer> </System> ------------------------------------- // in some .hpp file user definesoptions, // in terms of their conceptual destination, // but not their location in config: BOOST_CONFIGURATOR_OPTION( UdpHost ) BOOST_CONFIGURATOR_OPTION( UdpPort ) // Work with options: boost::cf::configurator conf; conf.add< UdpHost >().location( "System::UdpServer::Host" ); conf.add< UdpPort >().location( "System::UdpServer::Port" ); // in other place... std::string host = conf.get_value_of< UdpHost >(); unsigned int port = 0; conf.get_value_of< UdpPort >( port ); // or like this: unsigned int port = conf.get_value_of< UdpPort, unsigned int >(); So user does not use any string-identifier of option, but only its type. Advantages of such solutions (imho): - possible errors of option name will be detected at compile-time, - if location of option in config file has changed, user must rewrite only one string (in location() function), - I can not imagine a more simple interface... :-) What do you think about it? -Denis