Re: [boost] [metaparse] review

Hi Andrzej, On 2015-06-03 22:32, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

2015-06-03 21:44 GMT+02:00 Abel Sinkovics :

I am not quite sure either. Sorry, if I am being imprecise. For instance, I am rather impatient (and I suspect I am not the only one), and expect that I will learn from the documentation in less than three minutes, what is its scope, what I will and will not able to do with it, and how using it will look like. In the metaparse doc, I was not able to do that, I was forced to read the tutorial, whose pace is too slow for me. I got impatient and distracted.

My remark is not to the amount of information, but to how it is ordered. For instance, when you look at the documentation of Optional ( http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_58_0/libs/optional/doc/html/index.html), in the first page you get a short example of how it is used and why you want to use it. The potential user can immediately make a decision whether she wants this library or not.

I hope I am making sense. I cannot describe it any better. Perhaps it is just personal preference. If I understand you correctly, some example from which one can "easily" tell what the library is about would make sense in the documentation (probably on the first page).

BTW, nor I recall one thing, I failed to bring up earlier. There parser for detecting repeated elements is called "any". This name seams inadequate. Perhaps "any_number_of_times" or "repeated" would indicate the intent more clearly? I find "any_number_of_times" very long. "any_of" is shorter and things

For optional it is easy, as its scope is small and the concept is well known. For a compile-time parser generator library it is more difficult to come up with such an example, but I'll try my best. like "any_of" seem to be understandable (and are similar to the way "one_of" is named). Regards, Ábel