Re: UrShape XML parser

["James K. Lowden" <jklowden speakeasy org>]

John Palmieri wrote:

> Oh, you do want to use C++.  Ouch, I just thought you were just thinking in
> C++.  As much as I love C++ I think that forcing the maintainers to switch
> might not be a good thing.  If I have learned anything for developing with Open
> Source is to always follow the coding practices of the original developers
> unless they ok'ed the change.  I understand that xml++ would be great because
> of the ability to override nodes but I just think in the long run C++ is the
> wrong way to go with this.

John,

I don't want to force anything on anyone, to suggest recoding anything that works,
to redefine any precept, or to introduce C++ into any C module.  Well, maybe
I *want* to, but I won't and I won't even create noise on the list proposing it.

To the extent the UrShape behavior can be written as one or more modules, the code
within will be simpler, lighter, and easier to manage.  Anyone who can wrap his
head around the gtk's notion of doing OO in C will prefer C++.  One look at
libxml++ is worth more than I can say.

I know the STL has been bandied about here as a good property management tool, and
it's my impression no one was really prepared to wrestle with it.  I take it that
there's at least some experience with the language and some recognition of its
value.

I'm at the front of the line go-along-to-get-along crowd.  I think Dia's a
wonderful lady, and I wouldn't harm her for the world.  That's why I made
intentions clear.  If there's serious entrenched objection to C++, I'm sure we'll
hear about it.

Meanwhile, we have work to do.  Let's see if we can do something useful and
valuable.

--jkl