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

From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-18 16:14:21

Vladimir Prus wrote:

> I'm currently in process of writing a code that is intended to deal with all 
> the options style that I've aware of. So far it looks like some 
> disambiguation decisions must be made and somebody might not like them. On 
> the other hand, I don't see much implementation problems. 

I look forward to your results.  It's good that folks are starting
to dig more deeply into this.

> fewer way of tweaking syntax than I'd like). If I succeed, then there will be 
> a flexible command line parser with only a few dependencies on standard 
> headers, which will be usable separately and as low-level part for the 
> already-written semantic part. I think that in this case there simply won't 
> be a reason to use Spirit.  

David Held makes a good case for using Spirit: commonality.  But
let's crunch the numbers and see what we get.

                              -Dave

-- 
"Some little people have music in them, but Fats, he was all music,
  and you know how big he was."  --  James P. Johnson