From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-26 11:21:45
Eugene Lazutkin said:
> If it is not possible to go away from "kitchen sink" approach because of
> some inherent complexities, layered approach can be used. The simplest
> form is to have several (two?) related versions of the same library:
> full-blown universal one and slim simple one. If parsing pattern string
> takes a lot and requires to link some dead code --- get rid of it in
> simplified version! I would be happy to construct my static patterns in
> some other way!
Again, this is the crux of the matter. To quote, you have a "static
pattern", and for that, a RegExp engine is not ideal. If you have a mix
of static and dynamic patterns, then you may want to keep with a RegExp
engine for both... though a static parser will still be more efficient.
So, again, it sounds like what you want is Spirit instead of Boost.RegExp
Oh, and what Dave said on this subject is still true as well. The easy
utility of RegExp engines may indeed be a larger factor in the decision
then only size or performance considerations. But that's something you'll
have to decide for your specific case. The point is, I still don't see
any relevant arguments that Boost.RegExp is bloated.
-- William E. Kempf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk