Re: [Boost-users] [proto] : Recursive functions in a lambda like language

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [proto] : Recursive functions in a lambda like language
From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-03 05:41:12

On 07/03/10 00:17, Eric Niebler wrote:
[snip]
>> This is the main reason I wanted a named type. I am not necessarily
>> married to this syntax. Any other syntax, maybe just using proto
>> mechanism, that allows (mutually) recursive function definitions would
>> be cool..
> 
> That's a hard one. But for inspiration, see how Classic Spirit allows
> subrules:
> 
>   http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_33_1/libs/spirit/doc/subrules.html
> 
> These are statically-bound, mutually recursive grammar rules. You need
> to pick one to be top-most (the rule). The others are merely
> placeholders, symbolic names to stand in for rules. The whole thing is
> composed in one giant expression template.
> 
There's also:

   http://preview.tinyurl.com/38xrwj3

which refers to code in the vault which does something similar to
spirit1 subrules.

There's also this post:

   http://preview.tinyurl.com/2v9eg9b

which says something similar to subrules was planned for spirit2;
however, I don't know if that ever happened.

HTH.

-regards,
Larry
[snip]