On 10/20/2010 11:41 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Thomas Heller
thom.hel...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thursday 21 October 2010 05:11:49 Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/20/2010 7:49 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
snip
Here it goes:
namespace detail
{
template
On 10/21/10 11:11 AM, 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 think this is what is done here. We visit a
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 15:02:01 Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/14/2010 12:27 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
snip
- 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 sent
On 10/14/2010 4:46 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 10/13/2010 11:54 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
I don't get that. There needs to be a phoenex grammar. One, and only
one. I don't see why it's a template, what the tag type is for, or how
one could use a tag to define a better phoenix grammar. Because
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
grammar is conceptually very appealing. The grammar is the control
flow, the
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
Eric Niebler wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Heller
thom.heller-gM/ye1e23mwn+bqq9rb...@public.gmane.orgwrote:
snip
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
visitors, but
On 10/4/2010 12:20 PM, Thomas Heller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:53 PM, joel falcou joel.fal...@lri.fr 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
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Thomas Heller
thom.hel...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Eric Niebler e...@boostpro.com 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
