Boost logo

Boost :

From: Miroslav Silovic (miro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-28 06:15:13

Eugene Lazutkin wrote:

>>Note, that this is not an argument against refactoring regex++ (if
>>that is needed and doable), but just an argument for putting
>>executable size in its place along with all the other factors in
>>software development.
>I agree. But truly universal libraries should take in consideration as many
>factors as possible. That is what I am trying to say.
Just to add more to this: For simple tasks, there already are C regexp
libraries, and they're small, well-tested (as close to bug-free as
you'll get) and *fast*. Their size overhead is exactly 0, since they
come with the system, and share standard (POSIX) API. And they're not
that difficult to just call on any given a_string.c_str(). For complex
tasks, now we have Spirit, which expands fairly light-weight parsers,
and it may interact with runtime (thanks to its runtime
parametrisation). So regex++ niche seems to be... what, exactly?


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