From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-14 14:06:34
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:48 America/Denver, Paul Mensonides
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gregory Colvin
>>> The library is effectively a programming language.
>> Right. And I would find it easier to understand if I could study its
>> BNF grammar.
> (I'm not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.)
> It would be a large grammar. The library acts like a programming
> language, but it isn't technically a programming language--which gives
> it a lot more inconsistencies and special cases than a proper language.
I'm not clear on how it is "not technically a programming language". It
has a syntax and a semantics, both of which are difficult to divine from
the documentation. But I can see that, given the basis in Cpp, a formal
specification would also be difficult.
> (After all, it is built atop Cpp which drastically limits its
> abilities.) However, I suppose it is possible to produce a grammar.
That would be a worthy effort, even if it required some hand-waving to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk