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

From: joel de guzman (isis-tech_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-02 11:43:26

From: "Vladimir Prus"

> I think that the argument now becomes to be non-productive, and no
> experimentation that I am aware of is happening. I therefore think that

Bruce and I are doing experimentations on syntax.

> *all* syntaxes should be implemented, so that they could be tried in
> practice. This can be done, for example, by providing a number of
namespaces
> namespace Spirit { // default meaining of operators

Bruce did that I think with a special include file that
implements his experimental syntax.

> 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?

Cheers,
Joel de Guzman