Boost logo

Boost :

From: David A. Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-18 16:19:20

Douglas Gregor wrote:

> On Thursday 17 January 2002 03:19 pm, you wrote:
>>If I understand you correctly, this model forces the programmer into
>>writing code like this:
>>// Pseudo-code
>>while ((arg = parser(i, j)) != PARSE_END) {
>> // Do something with this argument
>>Other bits of discussion have focused on speparating syntax
>>analysis and semantic action. This model doesn't allow that
>>unless "Do something with this argument" builds an AST or
>>parse tree, which a parser should already do.
> I depends on how you define the Parser concept, of course. It could return an
> AST,or perhaps an argument*, where argument is a class that can contain any
> argument that will be passed to the user. The interface between the CLA
> parser and other arbitrary parsers need not equal the interface between the
> user and the CLA parser. lost me. :) What "other arbitrary parsers" are there?
I'm missing something important in your design, I think.


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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at