Re: Any interest for a parser class?

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 15:50:03

--- In boost_at_y..., "joel de guzman" <djowel_at_g...> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "joel de guzman" :
> 
> > So the numbers don't lie. In terms of code size,
> > Spirit outperforms Gennadiy's code hand written code.
> > 146K vs 180K in this trivial example.
> > 
> 
> BTW. I preprocessed both files and the Spirit version is 1MB (v1.3)
> and 843K (v1.2) [ this includes the standard libs ]
> 
> *** This should drop considerably when spirit-core is isolated ***
> 
> while the hand-coded tokenizer version is 793K 
> [ also includes the standard libs ]
> 
> Regards,
> --Joel

I am not sure that it is reasonable to compare generic parser 
implementation with Spirit one, since first one would not affect user 
code, while second one does. Custom parsing rules that introduced by 
user are not part of the generic framework and as I assume will be 
considerably rarely used, while Spirit overhead will be present 
always. Depending what I prefer I could choose more safe, small, 
quick or powerful solution and use approptiate tools to implement it.

Gennadiy.