Eric Niebler wrote: > On 12/8/2010 5:30 PM, Thomas Heller wrote: >> I don't really now how to do it otherwise with the current design. >> There is really only this part of the puzzle missing. If it is done, we >> have a working and clean Phoenix V3. >> For the time being, I can live with the workaround I did. >> However, I will focus my efforts of the next days on working out a patch >> for this to work properly. > > I made a simple fix to proto::matches on trunk that should get you > moving. The overloads can still be smarter about sub-domains, but for > now you can easily work around that by explicitly allowing expressions > in sub-domains in your super-domain's grammar. See the attached solution > to your original problem.
I am afraid that this does not really solve the problem. I think there is a misunderstanding in how "sub-domain"ing works. The solution you propose is that a sub domain extends its super domain in the way that the expressions in the sub domain also become valid in the super domain. I guess this is the way it should work. However, the solution I am looking for is different. The sub-domain i tried to define should also extend its super domain, BUT expressions valid in this sub-domain should not be valid in the super domain, only in the sub-domain itself. I think proto should support both forms of operation. The first one can be easily (more or less) achieved by simply changing proto::matches in the way you demonstrated earlier, I think. I am not sure, how to do the other stuff properly though. _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
