Re: DSEL syntax, or opening the can of worms.

Rene Rivera wrote:
> namespace_(L,"a")
> [
>    def("f",&a::f),
>    class_<a::A>("A")
>    [
>      def("do",&a::A::do),
>      class_<a::A::B>("B")
>      [
>        def("again",&a::A::B::again)
>      ]
>    ]
> ]
> 
> Which has a one-to-one correspondence with the C++ code. So... Was this 
> ever considered? If it was, why was it not used? Is there a discussion 
> in the list I haven't read about this?

I don't think it was ever discussed; I've been over the history at least 
twice now, and I don't believe that the DSEL was discussed to this 
extent.  I think that only minor details were covered.  I could have 
missed something, though.  There isn't any code to cover the frontend 
either, so it seems that the DSEL is open territory for discussion.

Just a peanut gallery comment: I like Rene's proposed syntax better. 
Ostensibly, you should be able just to drop a class into another class' 
scope (though there may be details that would cause some difficulty that 
I haven't thought of).  It's also a lot smoother and, to me at least, 
more expressive.

-- 

John Moeller
[email protected]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/