From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-14 00:50:58
Preston A. Elder wrote:
> The INI file parser module of program_options needs to be changed. For
> some reason, the comment delimiter has been changed from ';' to '#'. The
> bigger problem is this has been taken beyond the first character of the
> line and there is no escaping ability!
> The more common INI file comment behavior is:
> '#' is a comment ONLY if it is the first character of the line
> ';' is a comment from that point of the line on, unless preceeded by a '\'
> (or more accurately, an odd number of '\' characters, since you could
> theoretically do \\\;, to translate to \; when made a string).
It's the first time I hear about ';' being used as comment delimiter. Can
you point me out to some docs which document INI format as above? Note also
that I never say that format of config files is exactly as used by
Windows .ini files.
> I have written my own INI parser for my own purposes, but it is not
> associated with program_options, which makes its usefulness in that
> context limited (without a lot of extra coding, etc).
> You can view the source here:
I'll take a look
> My own implementation does differ from the standard INI file parsing
> convention in allowing line continuation, ie.
> my_option = some text \
> some more text
> And it is interpreted as 'some text some more text'.
I intend to add this functionality too.
> One big selling point of my implementation is that it uses boost::spirit
> (the lexical parser) to do the parsing - so the logic for parsing is
> encoded in the lexical parsing language, not in code. Theoretically, this
> means you should be able to use my implementation directly, and adapt the
> code from IniFile::Load() that uses it for program_options relatively
> easily, and not have to worry about the parsing logic itself.
Sorry, this is not a selling point, it's a drawback. For a simple task like
parsing ini files Spirit is a overkill. To be specific:
1. Spirit does not work with borland, while program_options does. I don't
want to do as serialization do, and require older Spirit for borland --
that's maintenance nightlmare.
2. IIRC, there were reports of Spirit problems on darwin and on VC 8.0, and
I don't want to be affected by those.
> Otherwise (if you don't want to use a lexical-parser based implementation,
> or my version specifically), could we please stick to the standards,
I'd be happy to stick to standards provided you give an URL to those
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk