Re: [boost] Regex Question: Explicit Constructor

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-26 15:12:21

On 1/24/04 10:57 PM, "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Daryle Walker wrote:
>> 
>> Also, I wouldn't consider a list of characters to be equivalent to a pattern
>> matcher, even if the latter is implemented in terms of the former.  (Can a
>> regex be defined by other ways than a string?  Using "regex atom" objects
>> composed together could cut out the mandatory parsing engine the string
>> method requires.)
>> 
> 
> Indeed, such a regex engine already exists.  It's called xpressive and it
> lives in the boost sandbox.  It's under active development.

So Regex always uses string parsing during construction (besides copy
construction), for now?  I guess that Regex would still use some sort of
"atom" structure internally, though.

> FWIW, I also agree that the Boost.Regex constructor should remain explicit.
> IMO, a regex is not a string, and a string is not a regex.  A string is merely
> one (admittedly handy) way of initializing a regex.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com