Re: [boost] Any interest for a parser class?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 08:28:43

joel de guzman wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vladimir Prus"
>
> > The only question is if Spirit will make any much difference for users
> > that will justify making it a requirement. Yes, David Greene expressed a
> > wish for an elaborated command line syntax, but it remains to be decided
> > if it can'be be supported without using full-blown parser.
>
> That's exactly what David Held meant by reinventing
> the wheel. We have the functionality here and now.

I think we better stop this discussion, as it brings us nowhere. I can use 
YACC, or ANTRL or Spirit or whatever.  I won't use Spirit unless I'm shown
that Spirit is appropriate for the task. So far, no concrete examples were 
shown.

> > > Also, forgive me but why isn't nondeterministic RD not
> > > acceptable for parsing command lines?
> >
> > Becase command line syntax can be ambiguious. Checking for those
> > ambiguities and *documented* resolution of those resolvable are a must.
> > Can
> > nonterministic parsing give me that?
>
> I don't see a reason why not. I think you got this one incorrectly.
> You are looking at the parser while instead you should be looking
> at the parser generated by the parser. Your grammar should be
> the one to allow / disallow and check / ignore ambiguity.

"-bar" can be interpreted, depending on the styles user wants 
as either:
1) Three short options
2) Short option followed by parameter
3) Long option 
Can you give an *example* of how this can be handled with Spirit.

- Volodya