Is phoenix an official Boost library ? I do not see it listed among the Boost libraries for 1.40 or 1.41 although I do see it in the pdf documentation for Boost libraries put together by John Maddock.
Is phoenix an official Boost library ? I do not see it listed among the Boost libraries for 1.40 or 1.41 although I do see it in the pdf documentation for Boost libraries put together by John Maddock.
Phoenix is an official Boost library (see: http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2008/10/0205.php). AFAIK it's being currently rewritten before it gets added as a full citizen to the Boost SVN. For now please use Phoenix V2 which is located under the Spirit directory. Regards Hartmut --------------- Meet me at BoostCon www.boostcon.com
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Is phoenix an official Boost library ? I do not see it listed among the Boost libraries for 1.40 or 1.41 although I do see it in the pdf documentation for Boost libraries put together by John Maddock.
Phoenix is an official Boost library (see: http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2008/10/0205.php). AFAIK it's being currently rewritten before it gets added as a full citizen to the Boost SVN. For now please use Phoenix V2 which is located under the Spirit directory.
If Phoenix is an official Boost library should not its documentation be listed in the libraries page of a Boost distribution ? Otherwise there is no indication it even exists, except for an occasional mention in the Spirit docs. That can not be a good thing either for end-user's or the Phoenix developers.
Edward Diener wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Is phoenix an official Boost library ? I do not see it listed among the Boost libraries for 1.40 or 1.41 although I do see it in the pdf documentation for Boost libraries put together by John Maddock.
Phoenix is an official Boost library (see: http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2008/10/0205.php). AFAIK it's being currently rewritten before it gets added as a full citizen to the Boost SVN. For now please use Phoenix V2 which is located under the Spirit directory.
If Phoenix is an official Boost library should not its documentation be listed in the libraries page of a Boost distribution ? Otherwise there is no indication it even exists, except for an occasional mention in the Spirit docs. That can not be a good thing either for end-user's or the Phoenix developers.
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit. HTH, -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Eric Niebler <eric@boostpro.com> wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
[snip]
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit.
Hasn't this effort demonstrated that phoenix might not be as portable as the current implementation? Maybe isn't the current implementation good enough for Phoenix to be a first-class citizen?
HTH,
-- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit.
Hasn't this effort demonstrated that phoenix might not be as portable as the current implementation?
What effort? Why do you think Phoenix isn't 'portable'? Do you mean it doesn't compile on outdated compilers? Or do you mean it doesn't compile using C++0x? What do you mean by that? Please be more specific.
Maybe isn't the current implementation good enough for Phoenix to be a first-class citizen?
I'm not sure where this comes from. If you followed the review or read the review decision you wouldn't ask this question. Regards Hartmut --------------- Meet me at BoostCon www.boostcon.com
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser@gmail.com> wrote:
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit.
Hasn't this effort demonstrated that phoenix might not be as portable as the current implementation?
What effort?
Why do you think Phoenix isn't 'portable'? Do you mean it doesn't compile on outdated compilers? Or do you mean it doesn't compile using C++0x? What do you mean by that? Please be more specific.
I meant what Eric commented on the MSM thread about MSVC (8 and above) bugs w.r.t proto. Though I have to say the only bug in MSVC for proto I found has a very specific workaround in proto documentation. I do use proto in some of my projects. I'll try to find the specific message and quote it.
Maybe isn't the current implementation good enough for Phoenix to be a first-class citizen?
I'm not sure where this comes from. If you followed the review or read the review decision you wouldn't ask this question.
Sorry. I really didn't. Though I really wanted phoenix to be a first-class library in boost. Not to be found only inside Boost.Spirit v2.
Regards Hartmut
Regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Sorry, replying to myself to correct a huge mistake. On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Hartmut Kaiser
[snip]
Why do you think Phoenix isn't 'portable'? Do you mean it doesn't compile on outdated compilers? Or do you mean it doesn't compile using C++0x? What do you mean by that? Please be more specific.
I meant what Eric commented on the MSM thread about MSVC (8 and above) bugs w.r.t proto. Though I have to say the only bug in MSVC for proto I found has a very specific workaround in proto documentation. I do use proto in some of my projects. I'll try to find the specific message and quote it.
Sorry, the message was about fusion. Not phoenix. [snip] -- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit. Hasn't this effort demonstrated that phoenix might not be as portable as the current implementation?
What effort?
And that's just it. There currently is no active development on Phoenix v3. It's not because it's particularly difficult -- there's a prototype and it works just fine. It's just a big job, and the developers in question have been busy with other things. The lack of a Protofied Phoenix is not indicative of any shortcoming of Proto or of Phoenix. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Eric Niebler wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit. Hasn't this effort demonstrated that phoenix might not be as portable as the current implementation?
What effort?
And that's just it. There currently is no active development on Phoenix v3. It's not because it's particularly difficult -- there's a prototype and it works just fine. It's just a big job, and the developers in question have been busy with other things. The lack of a Protofied Phoenix is not indicative of any shortcoming of Proto or of Phoenix.
Joel Falcou took on the task. I'm confident he'll do a wonderful job. He's a lot more proficient with Proto than I. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net http://www.facebook.com/djowel Meet me at BoostCon http://www.boostcon.com/home http://www.facebook.com/boostcon
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Joel Falcou took on the task. I'm confident he'll do a wonderful job. He's a lot more proficient with Proto than I.
Well, I'm just swarmed into time eating side tasks. I have various proto prototype of Phoenix v3, the fact why I didn't publicized any is that they don't fullfill a lot of constraints (aka iso-functionality and easier extensibility). Progress are made, i'm not just into showing incomplete suff ;) Turbo-mode is planned to be started in January.
Eric Niebler wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Is phoenix an official Boost library ? I do not see it listed among the Boost libraries for 1.40 or 1.41 although I do see it in the pdf documentation for Boost libraries put together by John Maddock.
Phoenix is an official Boost library (see: http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2008/10/0205.php). AFAIK it's being currently rewritten before it gets added as a full citizen to the Boost SVN. For now please use Phoenix V2 which is located under the Spirit directory.
If Phoenix is an official Boost library should not its documentation be listed in the libraries page of a Boost distribution ? Otherwise there is no indication it even exists, except for an occasional mention in the Spirit docs. That can not be a good thing either for end-user's or the Phoenix developers.
IIRC, Phoenix was reviewed and accepted on the condition that it be reimplemented on top of Proto. That hasn't happened yet, and so Phoenix has not been merged to trunk. The old version of Phoenix still exists as a part Spirit.
OK, so Phoenix is not an official Boost library yet. That at least explains why there is no trace of its documentation in Boost.
participants (6)
-
Edward Diener -
Eric Niebler -
Felipe Magno de Almeida -
Hartmut Kaiser -
Joel de Guzman -
Joel Falcou