on Sat Jan 10 2009, Markus Werle <numerical.simulation-AT-web.de> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
For me this library (which you call Spirit-2) is something so fundamentally new, it should a) undergo some review (at least concerning the interface) b) reside in its own directory
Well, Joel doesn't develop his library in a vacuum.
Really? How can he move so fast then? ;-P
There's a strong Spirit community that reviews all of his design decisions. There's no voting, of course, but I don't think that would be appropriate here.
Could you please explain why you think it is not appropriate to vote about a completely new interface that enters boost?
The rules of Boost strike a careful balance between quality control and author freedom. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but "excessive regulation hurts the marketplace and suppresses innovation." Aside from that, it's _not_ a completely new interface. The code I see in the Spirit-2 tutorial looks *very* familiar to me as someone familiar with Spirit-1. Certainly, the interface to Boost.Python 2.0 was much more different from Boost.Python 1 than that is.
I mean Spirit-X maybe once enters the C++ standard. It's already the most important parser library of the world. So it is better not to carve errors in stone at a stage that yet allows changes. Is it a problem if we all check this for user's issues *after* the inner circle is satisfied?
Go ahead, please. I have every confidence that the Spirit developers will be responsive to your observations. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com