From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-14 20:10:14
Paul Mensonides wrote:
>> 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. (After all, it is built atop Cpp which drastically limits
> abilities.) However, I suppose it is possible to produce a grammar.
I did notice that the various headers give a good breakdown of the macros
into their groups, so please ignore any previous criticism of that in the
documentation which I have given. It was definitely my fault for not looking
in the header file section of the documentation to see how it is arranged.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk