On 10/23/2010 10:45 AM, Thomas Heller wrote: > On Saturday 23 October 2010 19:30:18 Eric Niebler wrote: >> On 10/23/2010 10:12 AM, Eric Niebler wrote: >>> I've tweaked both the traversal example you sent around as well as my >>> over toy Phoenix. Tell me what you guys think. >> >> Actually, I think it's better to leave the definition of "some_rule" >> alone and wrap it in "named_rule" at the point of use. A bit cleaner. >> See attached. > > I like that. > With that named_rule approach, we have some kind of in code documentation: > Look, here that rule is a customization point.
Exactly. > Why not just rule? Less characters to type. I almost called it "rule", but *everything* in Proto is a rule including proto::or_ and proto::switch_. What makes these rules special is that they have a name. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
