From: Eugene Lazutkin (eugene.lazutkin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-26 15:49:17
"William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> This is the crux of the matter. If you'd required full regexp
> functionality, I doubt you could have hand coded it down much below the
> 50K reported.
Most probably you are right.
> But I don't see your argument as having any relevance to the discussion of
> whether or not Boost.RegExp or GRETA are overly bloated. Unless you can
> prove that such functionality can be provided in less than the reported
> 50K, the only thing we have evidence of is that full RegExp engines are
> not a universal solution for parsing... which everyone should know
You are right. I am not trying to prove that regexp++/Greta are "overly
bloated" implementing "full regexp functionality". I say that "full regexp
functionality" is not necessary in most cases. If I want to use some simple
subset, I will have "full regexp functionality", which I don't need.
It is not problem with a library per se. It is a problem with approach,
which forces reimplementing the same stuff all over again.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk