Re: [boost] [metaparse] review

Subject: Re: [boost] [metaparse] review
From: Abel Sinkovics (abel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-04 02:21:45

Hi Gordon,

On 2015-06-04 08:07, Gordon Woodhull wrote:
> It might be good to include opt<> (optional) in the library, or to have a short cookbook of common patterns like this, since it is not always obvious if one is doing the right thing.
I've been thinking a lot about whether I should add something like opt<> 
to the library or not given that it is a common pattern in grammars. The 
reason I have not done it yet was that I could not come up with a 
reasonable Default value and having two arguments (the optional parser 
and what to return when it is not present) didn't look simpler to me 
than the one_of<, return_<>> pattern. However, given that people seem to 
create opt anyway (as you did it as well) suggests that it should still 
be added.

Regards,
   Ábel