Re: [boost] Interest in DSL framework

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-10 21:48:08

Andreas Pokorny wrote:

>> Joel, Hartmut Kaiser and I have spent a lot of time working out the 
>> details of an expression template system that would work for xpressive, 
>> Spirit-2 and Hartmut's Karma library. The discussions were public on 
>> spirit-devel. Search the archives for "Spirit-2 and Subversion", 
>> "Scanner Busines, R.I.P.", "Proto Compiler Visitors", "Fusion-ifying 
>> proto parse trees", and "segmented fusion - a-ha!"
>>
>> In particular, this is the message where the strategy to unify all the 
>> ET libraries really crystallized:
>>
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.parsers.spirit.devel/2620
>>
>> It would be great if you could share your thoughts on how you would 
>> approach these problems with your new ET library.
> 
> I did not yet manage to read all email, but from what I read, you seem to 
> plan using segmented sequences to encode the complete expression tree. The 
> framework instead stores the expression tree mainly in a fusion map.
> But I think it makes sense to support both encoding variantes. With
> segmented sequences attributes will not work, and probably not required. 

I guess I'm still not clear about "attributes". What are those, really?
And why will attributes not work with segmented sequences? or not
required?

>>> To be honest, right now, for Spirit-2, I am inclined to use Eric's
>>> proto. It's been there for quite some time now and is quite mature.
>>> But, like your library, there are no docs yet (as far as I know).
>>> I'm not sure when Eric will have the time to get it outside xpressive
>>> as a standalone ET library, for review. At any rate, it would be
>>> interesting if you can form a collaboration with him. So, instead
>>> of having 2 separate ET entries, we can just have one that has the
>>> the best of both. Is that possible at all? Or is your library too
>>> different from Proto?
>>
>> I too would be interested in hearing more about your ideas and helping 
>> to build a unified ET framework for boost.
> 
> unified .. thats the reason why I intended to call the library
> Boost.Unification :) 

Not sure I like the name ;)

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net