Re: [libxml++] Adding STL-container-like methods to Node instead of returning container instance (xmlwrapp)

On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 21:21, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 16:00, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > Murray Cumming wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think we plan to provide an exactly DOM-specification-compliant
> > > API. I think we are on the right track now. Our hierarchy and API is
> > > DOM-like, but is clearly a C++ API. The list archive might show more
> > > discussion about this.
> > 
> > ok. What are the remaining issues with the iterator proposal ? Could
> > you please sum up so we can get ahead with this ?
> 1. Some people don't like changing begin() to children_begin(), because
> it's not really STL-like
> 2. Some people don't like putting only a few STL-like methods in the
> class without adding all of a clearly defined set of them.
> 3. I think that 2. could make the API generally cluttered and unclear.
> 4. I suggested an auxillary class instead to solve the problem of 3.
> 5. Someone needs to look at xmlwrapp to see what it does for this.
> Also, could you repeat why you think this API addition is necessary. I
> think you have said so already, but it's lost in the sea of messages.
> Please tell us your thoughts about these points. I leave it to you to
> investigate xmlwrapp because you are the author of this API change and
> you are the one who cares about adding it at all. If we do not resolve
> this soon then I will suggest again that we revert the stuff so far.

You can ignore this, because you seem to have brought up the same issues
in the "node iterators" thread.

Murray Cumming
murray usa net

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]