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

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-22 09:18:17

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <depdev.sdi_at_[hidden]>

> Hi, I know the review period is over but I only have one remark to add to the subject.
> 
> First of all, I think it is a superb library, so many thanks for the author for leting me use 
> it.

Most welcome. Thanks!

> I started a litle toy project of a c preprocessor analyser (for checking what macros are 
> being used/tested), but as my parser knowledge is a litle rusty and my free time is 
> scarse, I'm taking it slowly.
> 
> The only comment I have of relevance is the use of range_p( ch_first, ch_last ).
> As the type char is signed, a range like [ '\xC0', '\xC4' ] throws an assertion error 
> (ch_last less than ch_first). Another example is range_p( '\x21', '\xFF' ), for all non 
> control chars (in 8-bit latin1).
> 
> I understand that this can be a litle controverse as the type is signed (for the majority of 
> the compilers), but I think it is more natural if the range could be unsigned (at least for 
> foreign users like me that use more than 7-bit chars).

Use unsigned char: 

unsigned char ch_first = '\x21';
unsigned char ch_last = \xFF';
range_p(ch_first, ch_last);

HTH,
--Joel