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

From: John (EBo) David (ebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-26 06:49:56

From: "joel de guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]>

> From: "Larry Evans" :
> 
> > "John (EBo) David" wrote:
> >
> > > From: "joel de guzman":
> > > >
> > > > From: "Douglas Gregor":
> > >
> > > haven't though much about it, but how about "digit[0][2]" or
> > > "(a|b|c)[0][more]" instead...
> > > couldn't that work?
> > >
> >
> > I think the problem here is what's the type of digit[0]?  If it's
> > like arrays, then digit is rank2, digit[0] is rank1, and digit[0][2]
> > is rank0.  On the other hand, if you claim that all are rank 0, then
> > how do you distinguish whether the i in Parser::operator[](int i) is for
> > the min or max repititions of *this?
> >
> 
> I certainly can do this in the framework. In my other post:
> 
> > How about:
> >
> > a[2];               // exactly 2
> > a[0][2];          // 0..2
> > a[0][more];    // 0...
> > a[1][more];    // 1...
> >
> > This can be done.

Yep... Since I now get the Boost in digest form sometimes my responses
are a little behind the needle of the thread.  Sorry for restating
something already mentioned.

> > PS> Do I hear yuck?
> 
> Greg Colvin said: Yuck.  I rather see a.repeat(0,more) or repeat<0,more>(a).

I agree.  I think that reads much more clear to me.  The [][] idea is
only useful if you REALLY want to use []'s.

  EBo --