On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Florian Goujeon <florian.goujeon@42ndart.org> wrote:
Hi Dmitry,
[snip]
Scalpel has been designed to be used by such tools. But I guess Clang can do the job.
A spirit&wave implementation of the C++ grammar is useful in its own right.
I agree in the abstract, but how good must such a parser be for it to be useful? Must it handle a simple "Hello, world!"? <iostream> on common platforms? But the real question is... Would Boost accept a C++ parser library that cannot parse all of Boost? That's a very high bar for library acceptance. However, if it can't parse Boost, we can't use it to build cool new libraries and tools that deal with C++ code, because we could not use those tools ourselves. And that's the whole point of this exercise: we want a C++ parser library so we can make cool new tools for ourselves and other C++ programmers. My conclusion, then, is "no": Boost would not accept a C++ parser library that cannot parse Boost itself. That's the acceptance criteria, far more than any other technical concern. - Doug