Re: [boost] Re: [ANN] Spirit C++ parser framework.

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-25 19:21:26

OK, I'm convinced.

From: joel de guzman <joel_at_[hidden]>
> From: "joel de guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]>
> 
> > From: "Greg Colvin" > > 
> > > > JDG: How about something like:
> > > > 
> > > > class More_ {} more;
> > > > 
> > > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (uint first);
> > > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (uint first, uint last);
> > > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (uint first, More_ last);
> > > 
> > > That works too, but how is it really better than
> > > 
> > > const int more = -1;
> > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (int first);
> > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (int first, int last);
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes. Taking int parameters require an additional assert
> > for invalid (negative) numbers apart from -1 for the
> > second arg. uint parameters do not require checking
> > for negative numbers.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Joel de Guzman
> 
> Furthermore, the first 2 functions do *finite* iteration
> automatically without further checks for special cases.
> 
> > > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (uint first);
> > > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (uint first, uint last);
> 
> The third always does *infinite* iteration.
> 
> > > > IteratedParser     Parser::operator () (uint first, More_ last);
> 
> Cheers,
> Joel de Guzman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>