On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Christian Schladetsch wrote:
This exactly corelates to my 1,2,3 steps of Spirite usage. But somehow I am the Demon?
ROFL. Yes, you are the Demon! :-) At least you inject a lot of energy into this list, hopefully you will keep off the negative side of energy a bit... /David
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Konstantin Litvinenko < to.darkangel@gmail.com> wrote:
John Phillips пишет:
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.
Okay, I will try.... :)
When I decide to write my own Boost.Build v2 on steroids, first of all I pick the Spirit as parser, because I knew it. After writing more or less complex gramma I hit into slow edit/compile/run cycles. That was annoying but I can live with it. But when I hit the gramma debugging I gived up. For me debuging was impossible to do in any reasonable time. May be I use Spirit in a wrong way, I suppose I am not, but I decide to give a try to ANTLR v3. Now I can tell for sure - I will never use Spirit for more-less complex gramma until at least it will have tool like ANTLRWorks is. I am not a compiler builder expert, but experienced C++ developer. I need the tool to solve problems. In that single example Spirit doesn't solve my problems it only introduce new. Even in Hammer frontend I can't use Spirit I use it everywhere where I need a small inline parsing. Before Spirit I have used boost.regex. But since I learn Spirit I do not use it anymore. EBNF is much more readable for me than regexes. That is my experience....
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost