On 12/13/2012 06:44 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 12/13/2012 4:51 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
Hi,
I recently discovered a behavior which i find quite odd:
proto::matches::type fails when Expression is not a
proto expression. I would have expected that it just returns false in
this case. What am I
Hi,
I recently discovered a behavior which i find quite odd:
proto::matches::type fails when Expression is not a
proto expression. I would have expected that it just returns false in
this case. What am I missing. Patch is attached for what i think would
be a better behavior of that meta functi
On Friday, July 13, 2012 21:51:40 Bart Janssens wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been thinking about a feature for our DSEL, where lots of matrix
> products can occur in an expression. Part of an expression might be:
> nu_eff * transpose(nabla(u)) * nabla(u) + transpose(N(u) +
> coeffs.tau_su*u_adv*nabl
On 07/10/2012 11:18 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
I just committed to the proto-11 codebase a new transform called
_unpack. You use it like this:
_unpack
Where Tfx represents any transform (primitive or otherwise) f0 is any
callable or object type, and f1(_) is an object or callable transform.
The
On 01/03/2012 01:55 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
Proto's users guide has been behind the times for a while. No longer.
More recent and powerful features are now documented. Feedback welcome.
Sub-domains:
http://boost-sandbox.sourceforge.net/libs/proto/doc/html/boost_proto/users_guide/fro
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 5/15/2011 9:19 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today I experimented a little bit with phoenix and proto.
>> My goal was to decrease the compile time of phoenix. When I started the
>> development o
Hi,
Today I experimented a little bit with phoenix and proto.
My goal was to decrease the compile time of phoenix. When I started the
development of phoenix, Eric advised me to use proto::basic_expr to reduce
compile times.
Which makes sense giving the argumentation that on instatiating the expr
On Monday, May 09, 2011 11:18:50 PM Christophe Henry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to Eric's latest changes (which removed conflicts between MSM
> and phoenix), and Thomas' help, I added the possibility to use phoenix
> as an action inside eUML.
> There is still quite a bit to be done to be able to do w
On Sunday, May 08, 2011 07:36:32 PM Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>
> > My pre-preprocessing work continues, and all EDSLs that use Proto will
> > benefit from faster compiles. I'd like to thank Hartmut for his work on
> > Wave and Thomas for getting me set up.
>
> First results:
>
> Spirit/Phoenix V2,
On Sunday, May 08, 2011 02:48:19 PM Thomas Heller wrote:
> On Sunday, May 08, 2011 02:05:43 PM Eric Niebler wrote:
> > On 5/2/2011 6:18 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Eric Niebler
> wrote:
> > >> Phoenix is changing th
On Sunday, May 08, 2011 02:05:43 PM Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 5/2/2011 6:18 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Eric Niebler
wrote:
> >> Phoenix is changing the following fundamental constants:
> >>
> >> BOOST_PROTO_MAX_ARITY
>
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 5/5/2011 2:27 AM, Bart Janssens wrote:
>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Eric Niebler
>> wrote:
>>> Bart, how high can N go in your EDSL? Is it really arbitrarily large?
>>
>> I didn't hit any limit in the real application (most complicat
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> (cross-posting to the Proto list and cc'ing Hartmut.)
>
> On 5/2/2011 6:18 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> Phoenix is changing the fo
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> (cross-posting to the Proto list and cc'ing Hartmut.)
> On 5/2/2011 6:18 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> Phoenix is changing the follo
On Monday, April 25, 2011 06:39:14 PM Christophe Henry wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Sorry to come back to the subject so late, I didn't manage before :(
>
> > If you want to use it as a transform you need the evaluator with an
> > appropriate action that does the desired transform... here is an
> > ex
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Karsten Ahnert
wrote:
>>
>> Why not just write a transform that calculates one derivative and call
>> it N times to get the Nth derivative?
>
> Yes, that may be easy if you need two or three higher derivatives. For my
> application I need 10 to 20 or even more. I gu
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Karsten Ahnert
wrote:
If you need to compute intermediate values, you can use a transform to
build a parallel structure.
>>>
>>> Do you mean to build an entire new tree, or just to replace some nodes?
>>
>> If only some nodes have associated intermediate
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Christophe Henry
wrote:
> Hi,
Sorry for the late reply ...
> I have my eUML grammar, defing, for example a transition as:
>
> SourceState+ Event [some_guard] == TargetState
>
> I want to write for some_guard an expression of a phoenix grammar. The
> relevant part
On Monday, March 14, 2011 10:12:09 PM Christophe Henry wrote:
> >Calling phoenix expressions from the statement module return void.
> >Calling phoenix expressions from any other modules return whatever ...
> >depending on the "C++-Sense".
>
> It's ok, I can live with it, though I'll need to find a
On Monday, March 14, 2011 01:39:41 PM Christophe Henry wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> >> Row < source_state , event , target_state, action , guard >
> >
> >I suggest you to look into spirit how semantic actions are dealt with, it
reminds me of exactly this:
> Ok I will, thanks.
Keep in mind, spirit use
On Sunday, March 13, 2011 10:07:30 PM Christophe Henry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I started a rewrite of a major part of my eUML front-end to fix the
> issues I left open in the current version, and I'm now at the point
> where I've done enough to present what I have and get some opinions on
> the choic
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/28/2010 11:43 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/28/2010 5:39 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>>> I just saw that you added functional::at.
>>>> I was wondering about the rationale of your deci
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/28/2010 5:39 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> I just saw that you added functional::at.
>> I was wondering about the rationale of your decision to make it a non
>> template.
>> My gut feeling would have been to have proto::functional::at(seq)
&
Eric Niebler wrote:
> Proto ships with a very small collection of callables for use in Proto
> transforms: wrappers for fusion algorithms like reverse and pop_front
> and the like. For 1.46, there will be a few more: make_pair, first,
> second, and wrappers for a few more Fusion algorithms. It's w
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/27/2010 5:26 AM, Joel Falcou wrote:
>> On 27/12/10 11:02, Maxim Yanchenko wrote:
>>> Hi Eric and other gurus,
>>>
>>> Sorry in advance for a long post.
>>>
>>> I'm making a mini-language for message processing in our system.
>>> It's currently implemented in terms of ov
Hi,
I just wanted you to know that phoenix3 is in a working state once again.
I refactored everything with the changes we discussed ...
All tests from boost.bind are passing!
Placeholder unification is in place!
Now ... up to documentation writing and checking for BLL compatibility ...
Regards,
T
Hi,
I recently run into an ICE by compiling phoenix3 with gcc-4.2. It seems this
particular can not handle proto::detail::poly_function_traits properly.
the problem is the default Switch template initialization ... by replacing
std::size_t Switch = sizeof(test_poly_function(0,0)) by typename Swi
Eric Niebler wrote:
> Proto ships with a very small collection of callables for use in Proto
> transforms: wrappers for fusion algorithms like reverse and pop_front
> and the like. For 1.46, there will be a few more: make_pair, first,
> second, and wrappers for a few more Fusion algorithms. It's
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/10/2010 3:23 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> 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
&
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
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
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 4:44 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> I will try to present a patch. I urgently need this feature to be
>> become officially supported to use it for phoenix3 (a scope opened by let
>> or lambda should be it's own sub domains in order t
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/8/2010 5:30 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> On 12/7/2010 2:37 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>>> So, How to handle that correctly?
>>>
>>> Yup, that's a problem. I don't have an answer for you at
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/7/2010 2:37 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been trying to extend a domain by "subdomaining" it. The sole
>> purpose of this subdomain was to allow another type of terminal
>> expression.
>>
>> P
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/7/2010 2:37 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been trying to extend a domain by "subdomaining" it. The sole
>> purpose of this subdomain was to allow another type of terminal
>> expression.
>>
>> P
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/7/2010 3:13 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> Now they do: T()(e,s,d). Inside T::impl, D had better be the type of d.
>>> Nowhere does the _data transform appear in this code, so changing _data
>>> to be "s
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/7/2010 2:58 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/7/2010 12:57 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *Dough* misunderstanding here. I didn't mean to clean up the phoenix
>>>> sco
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/7/2010 12:57 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>
>> *Dough* misunderstanding here. I didn't mean to clean up the phoenix
>> scope expressions with the help of proto::let. I was thinking, maybe
>> proto::let can borrow something from phoenix
Hi,
I have been trying to extend a domain by "subdomaining" it. The sole purpose
of this subdomain was to allow another type of terminal expression.
Please see the attached code, which is a very simplified version of what I
was trying to do.
Ok, so let me try to explain what happens with a smal
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/6/2010 4:50 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> I played with the let transform idea over the weekend. It *may* be
>>> possible to accomplish without the two problems I described above. See
>>> the attached let trans
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 3:31 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> On 11/18/2010 1:45 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>> Eric Niebler writes:
>>>> It's REALLY hard. The let context needs to be bundled with the Expr,
>>>> State, or Data parameters somehow
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 12/2/2010 6:51 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just encountered a somehow stupid problem. Possibility is high that i
>> missed something.
>>
>> The problem is, that proto's default transform cannot handle op_assig
Hi,
I just encountered a somehow stupid problem. Possibility is high that i
missed something.
The problem is, that proto's default transform cannot handle op_assign
correctly. This is due to the fact that operator OP returns a const proto
expression, which turns every value type in proto termi
Eric Niebler writes:
> On 11/18/2010 6:09 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > Here goes the renumbering example:
> > http://codepad.org/K0TZamPb
> Unfortunately, this doesn't actually solve the reevaluation problem ...
> it just hides it.
Yes, exactly.
> If "_a"
Thomas Heller writes:
> Thomas Heller writes:
> > Eric Niebler writes:
>
> > > Notice that the Renumber algorithm needs to be invoked twice with the
> > > same arguments. In this case, we can avoid the runtime overhead of the
> > > second invocation
Thomas Heller writes:
>
> Eric Niebler writes:
> >
> > Notice that the Renumber algorithm needs to be invoked twice with the
> > same arguments. In this case, we can avoid the runtime overhead of the
> > second invocation by just using the type information, but
Eric Niebler writes:
>
> On 11/17/2010 2:18 PM, joel falcou wrote:
> > On 17/11/10 19:46, Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> See the attached code. I wish I had a better answer. It sure would be
> >> nice to generalize this for other times when new state needs to bubble
> >> up and back down.
> >
> > Just
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 2:18 PM, joel falcou wrote:
>> On 17/11/10 19:46, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> See the attached code. I wish I had a better answer. It sure would be
>>> nice to generalize this for other times when new state needs to bubble
>>> up and back down.
>>
>> Just chiming i
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Joel de Guzman
wrote:
> On 10/25/2010 12:39 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2010 8:32 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/25/2010 8:49 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
Like "visitor", "actor" comes with lots of baggage that we don't want:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Joel de Guzman
wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 1:16 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>
>> Now, what to call the traveral/algorithm/action/on thingy. None of those
>> feel right. Maybe if I describe in words what it does, someone can come
>> up with a good name. Given a Proto gramma
On Saturday 23 October 2010 19:47:59 Eric Niebler wrote:
> 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 ex
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_rul
o: "Discussions about Boost.Proto and DSEL design"
>
> Subject: Re: [proto] Visitor Design Pattern
>
> On 10/23/2010 5:36 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> > On 10/22/2010 10:45 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2010 10:01 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >>> I t
On Friday 22 October 2010 11:29:07 Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/22/10 4:17 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Friday 22 October 2010 09:58:25 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2010 12:33 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >>> On Friday 22 October 2010 09:15:47 Eric Niebler wr
On Friday 22 October 2010 11:29:07 Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/22/10 4:17 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Friday 22 October 2010 09:58:25 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2010 12:33 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >>> On Friday 22 October 2010 09:15:47 Eric Niebler wr
On Friday 22 October 2010 09:58:25 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 12:33 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Friday 22 October 2010 09:15:47 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/21/2010 7:09 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> >>> Check out the doc I sent (Annex A). It'
On Friday 22 October 2010 09:15:47 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 7:09 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> > Check out the doc I sent (Annex A). It's really, to my mind,
> > generic languages -- abstraction of rules and templated grammars
> > through metanotions and hyper-rules.
>
> Parameterized rul
On Friday 22 October 2010 04:09:52 Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 10:01 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> If you want to go "meta" on parsing, then you might
> >> get some inspiration on 2-level grammars (inspired by van Wijngaarden
> >>
> >> grammars) with the notion of hyper-rules, etc. This d
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Heller
wrote:
> On Thursday 21 October 2010 05:11:49 Eric Niebler wrote:
>> On 10/20/2010 7:49 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> > Here it goes:
>> > namespace detail
>> > {
>> >
>> > templ
On Thursday 21 October 2010 05:11:49 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 7:49 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > I worked a little on trying to simplify that whole grammar with
> > rules that have thing a bit. Forgive me, but i changed the name to
> > Visitor. Why? Simply because i
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 21:24:49 joel falcou wrote:
> Using thomas code and my own functor class , i designed a new
> computation transform but it fails
> to dispatch.
Actually it is Eric's code and idea we are using. So it is him who needs to
take credit for it ;)
___
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 05:19:17 Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 12:08 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> > On 10/19/2010 1:33 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> >>> Can we also focus on one very specific use-ca
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 15:02:01 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/14/2010 12:27 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>
>
> > - A new set of actions can be created easily by delegating
> >
> > to MyActions::action by default, and specializing only those
> > rules that need custom handling.
>
> The code I
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 05:19:17 Joel de Guzman wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 12:08 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> > On 10/19/2010 1:33 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> >>> Can we also focus on one very specific use-ca
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Joel de Guzman
wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 3:25 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Based on recent discussions [1] I want to propose a new design for the
>> intermediate structure of phoenix3.
>>
>> This email w
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 12:25 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Based on recent discussions [1] I want to propose a new design for the
>> intermediate structure of phoenix3.
>
>
>> I hope this explanat
Hi all,
Based on recent discussions [1] I want to propose a new design for the
intermediate structure of phoenix3.
This email will be the attempt to both explain the design, and formalize
what phoenix is, and what phoenix expressions are.
An implementation can be found at [2]. Please feel free
On Saturday 16 October 2010 04:10:23 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Thomas Heller
>
> wrote:
> > So, one of your points of criticism was that my solution was overly
> > verbose.
> > I like to throw this ball back at you. I think both solutio
On Saturday 16 October 2010 20:42:46 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 7:51 AM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> > Please distribute.
> > --
> >
> > 5TH ANNUAL BOOST CONFERENCE 2011
> > Aspen CO, USA, May 15 - 20, 2011, www.boostcon.com
> >
> > CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
>
>
>
> IMO, Phoe
On Saturday 16 October 2010 03:45:45 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Heller
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 07:10:15 Eric Niebler wrote:
> > > I had a really hard time grokking unpack. In Proto, function-types
> > &g
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 07:10:15 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 11:51 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Heller
> >Note: i created a unpack transform which is boilerplate code for the
> >
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 11:08 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Let me try again ...
>> I tried to solve the problem that when writing a proto grammar+transform
>> you might want to dispatch your transform based on tags.
>
> You mean expression tags, right
On Thursday 14 October 2010 08:29:00 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 11:08 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 22:46:40 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2010 11:54 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:15:55 Eric
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 22:46:40 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 11:54 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:15:55 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> Possibly. But now, you're explicitly constructing a terminal with a
> >> reference_wrapper as
On Thursday 14 October 2010 01:58:16 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 12:20 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:53 PM, joel falcou wrote:
> Joel, I don't recall this particular problem or being unable to solve it
> with Proto transforms.
>
> > The
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 22:46:40 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 11:54 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:15:55 Eric Niebler wrote:
See my other post about comments on this, I think we agree on the rest.
The only problem we are diverging right know se
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:15:55 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 11:06 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 07:10:15 Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2010 11:51 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >>> During the last discussions it became
On Wednesday 13 October 2010 07:10:15 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 11:51 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Heller
> >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> I'll also point ou
On Tuesday 12 October 2010 22:24:25 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 10:57 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > Eric Niebler wrote:
> >> On 10/4/2010 12:20 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> >>> the new thing i added is transform_expr, which works like
> >>> fusion::
On Tuesday 12 October 2010 22:37:06 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 1:24 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> > So it really seems to me that transform_expr is not necessary, but I
> > may be wrong.
>
> I just confirmed this by trivially replacing uses of transform_expr with
> appropriate uses of nary_ex
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/8/2010 12:12 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> On Thursday 07 October 2010 23:06:24 Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2010 1:55 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>> The idea of being able to specify the transforms separately from the
>>>> g
On Thursday 07 October 2010 23:06:24 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 1:55 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> > The idea of being able to specify the transforms separately from the
> > grammar is conceptually very appealing. The grammar is the control
> > flow, the transform the action. Passing in the tra
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Heller
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'll also point out that this solution is FAR more verbose that the
>> > original which duplicated part of the grammar. I also played with such
>> >
Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 12:20 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:53 PM, joel falcou
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/10/10 20:45, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not opposed to such a thing being in Proto, but I (personally)
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 6:49 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I spent some time on thinking how one could make the traversal of a proto
>> expression tree easier. I know want to share my findings with you all, and
>>
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:53 PM, joel falcou wrote:
> On 04/10/10 20:45, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>
>> I'm not opposed to such a thing being in Proto, but I (personally) don't
>> feel a strong need. I'd be more willing if I saw a more strongly
>> motivating example. I believe Joel Falcou invented somet
ch was soon over, because, calling transforms
recursively is what makes proto traverse the tree. I will try to formulate
some traversal orders in one of my next mails.
Greetings, Thomas
/***
* Copyright 2010 Thomas
On Wednesday 22 September 2010 15:40:37 Eric Niebler wrote:
> Right, there's potentially a problem in Proto here. If RHS and LHS are
> in different domains, a common super-domain is deduced first, and then
> Proto checks to see if the LHS and RHS conform to that common domain.
> That doesn't seem r
Eric Niebler wrote:
> (proto lists members, see this thread for the rest of the discussion,
> which has been happening on -users:
> http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2010/09/62747.php)
>
> On 9/21/2010 9:19 AM, Roland Bock wrote:
>> On 09/21/2010 11:55 AM, Thomas Heller w
, Roland Bock wrote:
>>> On 09/21/2010 11:55 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Solved the mistery. here is the code, explanation comes afterward:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, everything works as expected!
>>>>
>>>
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> It's also been posted to reddit.com. Vote it up if you like it!
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/d7hbm/expressive_how_to_create_parsers_using_a_c_domain/
>
> This version has been largely rewritten. I'm saving much of the juicy
Hi all,
I just noticed that Eric wrote BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(proto::matches) in one of his latest posts here on the list (see thread about
boost::parameters).
So I wonder, where is the fundamental difference between
BOOST_PROTO_ASSERT_MATCHES and the BOOS_MPL_ASSERT expression.
Cheers,
Thomas
On Sunday 15 August 2010 18:16:07 Mathieu - wrote:
> On 15 August 2010 17:46, Tim Moore wrote:
> > Nice. I've been meaning to start using Boost.Parameter in one of my
> > projects but I definitely like this syntax better. I'll probably start
> > using this soon (like this week).
> >
> > Please
On Sunday 15 August 2010 16:51:03 joel falcou wrote:
> So, Thomas and I felt bored or some suhc this afternoon. Incidentally, I
> needed to use Boost::Parameters
> in NT² but found the compile time to be somehow slow. So in a flash of
> defiance, we went to reimplementing
> a subset of parameters u
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 00:45:44 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 3:52
PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Eric Niebler
wrote:
> >> Good. Now if you are saying that Proto's existing transforms
are
> >> too low-level and that
On Tuesday 10 August 2010 17:21:53 Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 11:14
AM, Robert Jones wrote:
> > Well, as a complete novice to code of this
sophistication I
> > understood that piece perfectly, as far as it goes.
Naturally, as the
> > opening piece of a series it raises far more questions
th
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 2:52 PM, joel.fal...@lri.fr wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> A pre-order traversal, pushing each visited node into an mpl vector? How
>>> about:
>
>> I'm on a tiny mobile, but my idéa was to have such algo as proto
>> transforms
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 12:03 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2010 11:14 AM, Robert Jones wrote:
>>>> When you get this
>>>> stuff wrong, what d
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 8/10/2010 11:14 AM, Robert Jones wrote:
>> Well, as a complete novice to code of this sophistication I
>> understood that piece perfectly, as far as it goes. Naturally, as the
>> opening piece of a series it raises far more questions than i
On Tuesday 27 July 2010 15:04:30 Alp Mestanogullari wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:01 PM, joel falcou wrote:
> > Do people think such stuff (maybe in proto::tree:: or smthg ?) be useful
> > additions ?
>
> Definitely. We're dealing with a compile-time AST, but this is still
> an AST and we of
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
