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 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_rule" > >> alone and wrap it in "named_rule" at the point of use. A bit cleaner. > >> See attached. > > > > I like that. > > With that named_rule approach, we have some kind of in code > > documentation: Look, here that rule is a customization point. > > Exactly. > > > Why not just rule? Less characters to type. > > I almost called it "rule", but *everything* in Proto is a rule including > proto::or_ and proto::switch_. What makes these rules special is that > they have a name.
True. But you could look at proto::or_ and proto::switch_ or any other already exisiting rules as anonymous rules. While rule or named_rule explicitly name them. _______________________________________________ proto mailing list proto@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
