"Ivan Vecerina" wrote
"Andy Little" wrote news:e2a1p5$5he$1@sea.gmane.org... : : "Andy Little" wrote : > : >Did you consider a generic tree design? If so : > why did you reject it in favour of this one? : : Just to refresh... The above is the most interesting and yet unanswered question : about property tree for me. Am I missing something? Is this a silly question? Is : it too trivial to answer?
I would agree that this is an interesting point. - ptree integrates too many member functions that really should be non-member utilities (e.g. path solving, value<->ptree conversions) Fixing this is a must IMHO, I wouldn't want to accept another std::string like beast (too much built-in, yet never enough, so you end up with an inconsistent mix of member & non-member interfaces)
- in some ways, since it is already all-templated, maybe it could be made even more general (e.g. boost::any based values or nodes?)
On the other hand, loading a DOM-like tree structure into memory, and being able to manipulate it, is I think quite a common need.
Another common concept for Property Tree is the Path functionality of Boost.Filesystem. A Filesystem is AFAICS directly representable in a Property Tree. regards Andy Little