From: Joel de G. <jo...@bo...> - 2003-12-28 12:50:51
|
Hartmut Kaiser wrote: > Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > >>>Does it still makes sense to apply your patch to the CVS code base? >> >>No, because it breaks backward compatibility badly, and there >>are people who find the current approach better. > > > I see. > > >>>Or do you expect to get your new template policy based ready in a >>>reasonable amount of time? >> >>Not for 1.8.0 in any case. I think it will be too intrusive a >>change for it. > > > But we urgently need a solution for this! We have this discussion already > for over a year. Let's add at least a 'special' AST policy, which contains > your patch, say non_collapsing_ast and non_collapsing_ast_parse et.al. (yes, > the names are very ugly, but suggestions welcome). This may be changed into > a simple typedef later on, if/when you've finished your template policy > based implementation. I agree with Hartmut. We need new solutions and we need them ASAP. We can't wait any longer for another few months. I do not agree however that we incorporate this into the 1.8.0 branch. The best we can do, IMO, is to provide a solution for the HEAD branch which will then become the basis of 1.9.0. << WRT 1.9.0, I'd also like to add the sub_grammar proposal (see my other post re: parsing binary data. The class has been around for quite some time now and I am very fond of it. I'm quite impressed with its code size reduction. >> -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net |