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

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

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
www.murrayc.com