[boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th

Subject: [boost] [Boost-announce] [metaparse] Review period starts May 25th and ends June 7th
From: Christophe Henry (christophe.j.henry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-19 17:39:06

Dear all,

The review of the Metaparse library starts next Monday, May 25th and ends
June 7th. Metaparse was written by Abel Sinkovics.

Metaparse is a parser generator library for template metaprograms.
The purpose of this library is to support the creation of parsers that
parse at compile time.
This library is intended to be used for embedded domain specific language
creation for C++ and can help libraries provide a better interface.
It is similar to Boost.Spirit, however while parsers built with Spirit
parse at run-time, parsers built with Metaparse parse at compile-time.
It makes it possible for library authors to provide an interface that
follows the common notation of the problem domain of the library.
(eg. SQL queries, grammars, etc written in their common notation instead of
similar-looking C++ expressions).
For example there is a (yet incomplete) interface for Boost.Spirit that
makes it possible to write

  MPLLIBS_REGEX("^[abcd][3-8]\\.foo$")

instead of

  bos >> set[as_xpr('a')|'b'|'c'|'d'] >> range('3','8') >> '.' >> 'f' >>
'o' >> 'o' >> eos

and make the parser built with Metaparse generate the latter expression
from the former one.

(It can be found here:
https://github.com/istvans/mpllibs/tree/master/libs/xlxpressive)

Since the library is based on template metaprogramming, the DSLs can be
used for type validation as well.
This is demonstrated by the type-safe printf implementation (
http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/safe_printf/index.html).
It type-checks the arguments of a printf call based on the format string
and has zero runtime overhead compared to unchecked printf.

Parsers can be constructed in a declarative manner and (even though this is
template metaprogramming based) remain readable.
The implementation reflects the grammar it parses (with additional elements
for semantic actions).
Even though the library requires the parser author to write template
metaprograms, the development of parsers is well supported by tools like
Metashell and MDB.

An important aspect of parsers (built with this library or another one) is
error reporting for invalid input.
The library offers tools for the parser authors to be able to provide
useful error messages in case of parsing errors.
Here is an example error report by a parser built with Metaparse (the
parser can be found in the Getting Started guide of the library):

..... x__________________PARSING_FAILED__________________x<1, 5,
unpaired<1, 1, literal_expected<')'>>> ....

It is an error report letting the developer know that a closing paren is
missing at line 1, column 5 and the unclosed opening paren is in line 1,
column 1.

Metaparse can be downloaded from Github:

https://github.com/sabel83/mpllibs/tree/master/mpllibs/metaparse

And a very complete tutorial:

http://abel.web.elte.hu/mpllibs/metaparse/getting_started.html

The tutorial also offers the nice feature of a link to metashell for
quick-starting trying out the library:

http://abel.web.elte.hu/shell/metashell.html

Boost.Msm v3 also implements a new compile-time strings based front-end
called eUML2 to demonstrate the power of the library and the conciseness
and expressiveness it allows.
Please have a look at the documentation:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/boostorg/msm/msm3/doc/HTML/ch03s05.html

Everybody on this list is invited to participate in this formal
review. I hope to see your review of Metaparse, including your vote on
acceptance, and I welcome your participation in the ensuing discussions
on the Boost developers' mailing list.

Please always include in your review a vote as to whether the library
should be accepted into Boost.

Additionally please consider giving feedback on the following general
topics:

- What is your evaluation of the design?
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
- Did you try to use the library?
  - With what compiler?
  - Did you have any problems?
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Regards,

Christophe
Review Manager