And I don't use a 'document' class, as that is managed implicitely by my dom::document_ptr:
dom::document_ptr document; // create new document; dom::document_ptr doc(document); // create second reference to it dom::document_ptr doc2 = document.clone(); // clone it, i.e. make deep copy
This is not consistent with the standard library or C++ in general. It will seem strange that the pointer class 1) Does not require dereferencing
would you say the same if the class name was spelled 'document_ref' instead ?
1 & 4 would be ok, but 3 would stand and having an 'operator bool' would be added to the list.
3) Has a constructor such as document_ptr( "config.xml" ) 4) Has member functions such as write_to_file
The alternative would allow both...
boost::shared_ptr< dom::document > doc( new dom::document() ); boost::shared_ptr< dom::document > doc1( doc ); dom::document doc2( *doc1 );
and if the 'doc1' reference was non-owning...
dom::document doc(); // Create new doc dom::document & doc1( doc ); // Second reference dom::document doc2( doc1 ); // Deep copy
right, but given such an approach, what would nodes return in their 'parent()' method ?
The parent is always an element (is that right?) so it would return element_ptr or element_ref.
yes. Sorry, I meant to ask what 'document()' would return.
Stefan
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
