Re: [libxml++] Re: Libxmlplusplus-general digest, Vol 1 #293 - 1 msg

[Jonathan Wakely <cow compsoc man ac uk>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:07:43AM -0400, Kurt M. Brown wrote:

> I agree that a generic C++ API for xml would be useful; one the closely
> matches: http://www.w3.org/DOM/.
> 
> I think the only difference between libxml++ version 1 and 2.7 is the
> string type. That being the case, why not just make a typedef or a
> wrapper for the string type?

The typedef would have to live outside the library for it to be settable
by users of the library - so might as well be a #define - eurgh.

That would mean that binary versions of libxml++ were not compatible
unless compiled with the same value for the #define - euuuurgh.

The C++ way to do it, as Stefan suggests, is with templates.

jon


-- 
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
	- Phillip K. Dick