From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-15 12:05:59
On 04/07/08 17:04, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> participating), out of which 15 have been positive. The one 'No' essentially
> stated that the library, even if doubtless very useful, shouldn't be
> accepted yet, mainly because there has to be done more work in the area of
> formalizing the problem domain.
There was also an issue with separation of transforms from grammars.
This mixing made it hard for me to understand transforms. I believe
separating the two would make understanding for other novice users
easier also. Of course I'm not even real sure that separation is
possible, as I intimated with the '*highly* speculative' qualifier
in my review. However, since then I've been trying to separate the
two. This lead me to understand *maybe* why bundling the two is
necessary. The pass_through transform docs contain:
< Grammar::proto_childN(Expr::proto_childN, State, Data)
Now if Grammar::proto_childN is *not* derived from pass_through,
then that would make the above an object CTOR call. Unless
the N-th child has a 3 element CTOR, then this will fail to
compile. OTOH, if then N-th child is derived from pass_through
(IOW, if the grammar and transform are bundled), then this
Eric, is that about right?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk