4 Jul 19:41
Re: [proto] grammar compile error
Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida <at> gmail.com>
2009-07-04 17:41:15 GMT
2009-07-04 17:41:15 GMT
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Eric Niebler<eric <at> boostpro.com> wrote: > Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: >> >> And I want to create the looser grammar, composed of all >> sub-expressions inside the full grammar somehow. Is there a way to do >> this in proto, or should I start creating it with mpl? >> Is there a way to iterate a grammar? > > This sounds like more work than is truly necessary. There is really only one > good reason to specify a grammar when defining a domain, and that is to > disable troublesome operator overloads. > My suggestion would be to not > specify your dsel's grammar up front, but rather only validate full > expressions at the point of evaluation. You lose no safety that way. Defining a grammar loosely is harder than specifying it fully. Doing it fully, all I need to do is: shift(create, table, table_name, columns) and I'm done. But if I do it for all partial expressions, I might forget something. I'm trying to define a SQL grammar. Having it checked earlier, helps me traversing it later, since I know it is right. Also, it prohibits most expressions right away, giving better error messages. I wouldn't have to check later on if there's a non-sensical terminal anywhere. create << table << create would have no overloads. All I need is to traverse a grammar, and define another grammar with all sub-expressions. Since the grammar is not very big, it shouldn't be too hard on the compiler (I hope). Though I'm not very experienced with proto yet. Is transforming a grammar a really difficult task? > -- > Eric Niebler > BoostPro Computing > http://www.boostpro.com -- -- Felipe Magno de Almeida _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
RSS Feed