Hi John, This is somewhat unexpected. The reality for me and my workmates for years has been about boost::spirit: "boost is fun to look at" or "boost has useful things" or "boost::spirit is awesome, wait... what?" Point being that every real person, self included, that has ever tried to use boost::spirit has gone through three stages: 1. wow, it uses C++ static compile-time rules! 2. gee, this is slow to compile 3. ok, i can't use this. its too slow to compile and the error messages are pointless The reality is that Spirit tries to make C++ do something it shouldn't do. Joel and the others think otherwise. But yeah, the C++ *compiler* is not a language tool. It's a clever thing, but hey, the rest of us just think they are silly. Regards, Christian. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:50 AM, John Phillips <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu>wrote:
Christian,
Inside the directx thread you asserted that there are things that ANTLR can do and Spirit can't. This met with some resistance, but I would like to take a different approach.
Please post a working code example, along with rationale for why you want to do it, that shows something ANTLR can do, but Spirit can't.
The goal is to move this out of rthe land of unsupported allegations, and into specific examples that can promote specific responses. My experience of Joel and Hartmut suggests that if you have any such real examples, they will use them as a basis for improving Spirit, a process which benefits everyone. If you display examples, and Hartmut and Joel (or anyone else) respond by providing working examples of how Spirit does that, too, then better information is propagated on the list, and again everyone benefits.
In general, this is a better way to critique by comparison. Provide actual working code for the comparison, and there is far less room for misinterpretation of intent or conclusions.
John
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost