Re: [boost] Re: Spirit syntax -- another suggestion.

From: joel de guzman (isis-tech_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-03 16:06:15

From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>:

> > > namespace Spirit_foobar { // another meaning
> > > }
> > > etc.
> > > After that, and experimentation, a table should be filled, stating
> > > 1) How many persons like and dislike each syntax
> > > 2) How those persons used Spirit
> > > 3) Which were issues with each syntax.
> > > After that, better syntax can be selected, or the table can be given
in
> > > documentation.
> > >
> > > I think this is the best way to deal with syntax questions.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough, but, isn't this getting to be a 'design by commitee' kind
of
> > thing?
>
> It appears to be. One fundamental thing that makes boost work is that the
> library author gets to decide. Nobody does any work s/he doesn't believe
in.
> I'm not saying that the discussion has run out of useful suggestions or
> points-of-view, but Joel (and anyone else he's working with) should get
> final say over the design of his library.
>
> -Dave

That said, I still welcome suggestions, criticisms and comments regarding
Spirit syntax. I always want to keep an open mind and I learn a lot from
you guys. Yet as Larry Evans noted, we might be focusing our attention
too much on the 'look and feel' issue. I would hope to see more discussion
on implementation issues.

Thanks,
Joel de Guzman