"Joel de Guzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Fernando Cacciola wrote: > > Hi, > > > > First question: I see that there is a phoenix subdirectory > > under both boost/spirit and lib/spirit; does this mean > > that pheonix is distributed with boost 1.30.0? or only part of it? > > There will be an LL/Phx merger. I hope it will be soon. That > depends a lot on which is the least compiler to support. Right > now, I have the core up and running on VC7 but ICEs on VC6. > Either I leave VC6 behind (now that 7.1 is imminent), or I > spend more time hunting by trial and error. The new LL/Phx > merger is MPL based. > I'm, looking fwd to it!
> BTW, Borland works as it does in Phoenix as do a lot more > compilers: > > http://spirit.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?page=Compiler+Table > > So the question is *to-vc6-or-not-to-vc6*, please send in your votes. > I prefer to have a tool that works only on new compilers than not to have it at all. > Second question: I'm trying to do something which I > > think could be done with some of the functional programming > > libraries and tools available here at boost, perhaps > > in combination with other tools from elsewhere. > > [snip] > > Ah..Lazy-evaluation... This was asked in the past. Phoenix named > placeholders: Phoenix+boost::function :-)... > This link might be of interest to you: > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.parsers.spirit.general/3393/match=placeh older+cpp > > This feature will hopefully, if Jaakko agrees, be part of the new > merger. > I just swa it, looks great! > > I'm heavily investigating *true* lazy evaluation, not to be confused > with partial evaluation that's currently done in LL and Phoenix. > To avoid confusion, I should change everything "lazy" in the Phx > docs to probably be "deferred". These are subtly different concepts. > Intereseting.... I think to remeber having read about a C++ framework with true lazyiness in one of the FC++ papers (but not in FC++ itself). If I get to remember it, I'll let you now. BTW, I actually need 'deferred' eval for my purposes, not truly lazy, so the "named-placeholder+function object" trick would do I guess. Thanks, Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
