Re: [boost] Re: Re: Formal Review: The Spirit Parser Framework.

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-12 11:14:07

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Daniel" <cpdaniel_at_[hidden]>

> "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:001901c271e7$caa8a830$0100a8c0_at_kim...
> 
> > Well, I am perfectly aware of that. However, if that's the only rationale,
> > what you are suggesting is something I definitely would not agree on.
> > First of all, the use of exceptions in Spirit is paired. Parser assertions
> > are always caught by the guard. It makes no sense to write parser
> > assertions without guards. Yet, if this is the intent of the programmer,
> > I have to trust her 100%.
> 
> This is true :-)  I withdraw the suggestion - no one outside Spirit will
> ever need to catch parse_error<>.  If an assertion is used without a
> corresponding guard, the program _should_ terminate due to an unhandled
> exception.
> 
> I'm less convinced about illegal_backtracking - I accept your argument that
> it's intended to be an independent component and so shouldn't derive from
> parse_error_base, but perhaps it should derive from std::exception.

I agree.

> fixed_size_queue should do _something_.  At the very least, it should
> contain assert(false) in the places where a full queue is detected.

Ditto.

--Joel