Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-02 13:26:38
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> That said, I will discuss it with Hartmut and with the Spirit users.
> Let's see how it goes.
>>>> The formatting capability is a brand new domain, and therefore it
>>>> should be extracted as another distinct Boost library. It may build
>>>> on top of Spirit, it may use the same coding guidelines, but it
>>>> should a be separately reviewed library in its own directory under
>>> I disagree. Karma was never advertized as a top-level Boost Library.
>> It should, IMO.
>>> It is a Spirit sub-library. Parsing and generation are two sides of
>>> the same coin.
>> These tasks are the opposite. I don't see why they should be mixed in
>> a single library.
> Traditionally, that's true. Have you seen a formal language like
> EBNF describe generation yet? But if you think outside the box,
> these really *are* two sides of the same coin.
> Should Boost.Serialization should be broken into two libraries,
> for example? Perhaps, but those sub-libraries are under Serialization.
> Ditto for IOStreams.
You may have a point here, although I regard parsing and formatting as
more disconnected tasks than serialization and deserialization. I guess,
that's because I often do one without the other.
However, that doesn't change my opinion regarding the library naming or