Re: Any interest for a parser class?

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 16:16:33

--- In boost_at_y..., "joel de guzman" <djowel_at_g...> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "rogeeff" 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> As Doug and David said, Spirit should not be exposed. It can very
> well be hidden in your cpp file. Yet, even if Spirit needs to be 
exposed,
> as Dan noted, only the forward declarations should actually be 
needed
> which is about 3K of interface code.

60k, including tuples.

> 
> --Joel

But Anyway its not true since if CLA framework does have some 
predefined parsing rules to choose from, why Spirit should be in the 
interface at all? If not, and you require user to define all parcing 
rules in Spirit terms we have mentiond overhead.

Gennadiy.