* Change node_map type from map<ptr,ptr> to vector<pair<ptr,ptr>>
Map nodes are now iterated over in document order.
* Change insert_map_pair to always append
Always append in insert_map_pair even if the key is already present.
This breaks the behavior of force_insert which now always inserts KVs
even if the key is already present. The first insert for duplicated keys
now takes precedence for lookups.
- Adds 'std=c++11' compiler flags
- Replaces boost::type_traits with std::type_traits
- Replaces boost::shared_ptr with std::shared_ptr
- Replaces std::auto_ptr with std::unique_ptr
- Replaces raw pointers with std::unique_ptr in ptr_vector, ptr_stack, and SettingChanges
- Replaces boost::noncopyable with deleted copy and assignment operators
- Replaces boost::next with std::next
- Replaces boost::enable_if with std::enable_if
- Replaces boost::is_convertible with std::is_convertible
- Replaces ptrdiff_t with std::ptrdiff_t
- Replaces boost::iterator_facade and boost::iterator_adaptor with std::iterator, borrowing the 'proxy reference' technique from boost
- Removes Boost dependency from CMakeLists
- Formats changed files using clang-format
"const Node Node::operator[](const Key& key) const" changed from
returning new empty node if the key was missing in 0.5.1 to returning
a shared 'zombie' node in 0.5.2 to resolve a memory leak.
(Specifically 1025f76df1 was where this
was introduced)
This caused some regressions where this 'zombie' object threw exceptions
in some functions where the 'empty' object would not.
This change fixes the Node::as(fallback) method (to return the
'fallback' instead of throwing an exception) and the
Node::begin()/Node::end() methods to return default-constructed
iterators (so begin() == end() in such cases) instead of another
exception.
- Update the call to equals() in node_data::remove() to match the new implementation
- Add unit test for node::remove() to catch this type of bug in the future
warning C4800: forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
for the node test, since it really doesn't make any sense in this context. (It's exactly what we intended with the "unspecified bool type".)
