Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
Hi,

In the thread:

I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing that ATM.
 
If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the next step to take (e.g. submission).


Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/9/29 TONGARI <[hidden email]>
Hi,

In the thread:

I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing that ATM.
 
If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the next step to take (e.g. submission).

Anybody there? Joel?  Hartmut?
I can't move on without your help...
 
Thanks.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Joel de Guzman-2
On 10/3/2011 2:31 PM, TONGARI wrote:

> 2011/9/29 TONGARI <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     Hi,
>
>     In the thread:
>     http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-qi-seek-directive-td3830251.html
>
>     I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
>     Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing that ATM.
>      
>     If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the next step
>     to take (e.g. submission).
>
>
> Anybody there? Joel?  Hartmut?
> I can't move on without your help...

Ooops, sorry. I missed your post. TBH, I wasn't able to follow the
thread. A very basic question that pops in my mind is: can't this
be done without the directive?

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/10/3 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]>
On 10/3/2011 2:31 PM, TONGARI wrote:
> 2011/9/29 TONGARI <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     Hi,
>
>     In the thread:
>     http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-qi-seek-directive-td3830251.html
>
>     I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
>     Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing that ATM.
>
>     If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the next step
>     to take (e.g. submission).
>
>
> Anybody there? Joel?  Hartmut?
> I can't move on without your help...

Ooops, sorry. I missed your post. TBH, I wasn't able to follow the
thread. A very basic question that pops in my mind is: can't this
be done without the directive?

As I had said, "seek[a]" is semantically equal to "omit[*(char_ - a)] >> a", but I believed it's more efficient (I don't have numbers though), or at least, it's sweet ;-)

In fact, the idea originated from a thread in Spirit-user ML, in which the author said he'd been using the pattern "omit[*(char_ - a)] >> a" for this matter and was looking for a better way.

seek[] is my solution to the problem, which is very generic, clear, and easy to use IMO.

As the implementator, I'd hope it to become part of Spirit.
Please let me know your opinion so I can take the next step accordingly.

Thanks for your attention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Joel de Guzman-2
On 10/3/2011 10:54 PM, TONGARI wrote:

> 2011/10/3 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     On 10/3/2011 2:31 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     > 2011/9/29 TONGARI <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     >
>     >     Hi,
>     >
>     >     In the thread:
>     >     http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-qi-seek-directive-td3830251.html
>     >
>     >     I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
>     >     Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing
>     that ATM.
>     >
>     >     If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the
>     next step
>     >     to take (e.g. submission).
>     >
>     >
>     > Anybody there? Joel?  Hartmut?
>     > I can't move on without your help...
>
>     Ooops, sorry. I missed your post. TBH, I wasn't able to follow the
>     thread. A very basic question that pops in my mind is: can't this
>     be done without the directive?
>
>
> As I had said, "seek[a]" is semantically equal to "omit[*(char_ - a)] >> a", but I
> believed it's more efficient (I don't have numbers though), or at least, it's sweet ;-)
>
> In fact, the idea originated from a thread in Spirit-user ML, in which the author said
> he'd been using the pattern "omit[*(char_ - a)] >> a" for this matter and was looking for
> a better way.
>
> seek[] is my solution to the problem, which is very generic, clear, and easy to use IMO.
>
> As the implementator, I'd hope it to become part of Spirit.
> Please let me know your opinion so I can take the next step accordingly.

Looks good to me. Hartmut?

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/10/4 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]>
On 10/3/2011 10:54 PM, TONGARI wrote:
> 2011/10/3 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     On 10/3/2011 2:31 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     > 2011/9/29 TONGARI <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     >
>     >     Hi,
>     >
>     >     In the thread:
>     >     http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-qi-seek-directive-td3830251.html
>     >
>     >     I've proposed this directive, and I'd like to know your opinions.
>     >     Though Thomas Bernard had provided another interesting idea, I'm not proposing
>     that ATM.
>     >
>     >     If you consider to accept this component, please let me know and tell me the
>     next step
>     >     to take (e.g. submission).
>     >
>     >
>     > Anybody there? Joel?  Hartmut?
>     > I can't move on without your help...
>
>     Ooops, sorry. I missed your post. TBH, I wasn't able to follow the
>     thread. A very basic question that pops in my mind is: can't this
>     be done without the directive?
>
>
> As I had said, "seek[a]" is semantically equal to "omit[*(char_ - a)] >> a", but I
> believed it's more efficient (I don't have numbers though), or at least, it's sweet ;-)
>
> In fact, the idea originated from a thread in Spirit-user ML, in which the author said
> he'd been using the pattern "omit[*(char_ - a)] >> a" for this matter and was looking for
> a better way.
>
> seek[] is my solution to the problem, which is very generic, clear, and easy to use IMO.
>
> As the implementator, I'd hope it to become part of Spirit.
> Please let me know your opinion so I can take the next step accordingly.

Looks good to me. Hartmut?

Hi, again

Have you guys made a decision? 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a
definitive record of customers, application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Joel de Guzman-2
On 10/6/2011 6:29 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>
> Hi, again
>
> Have you guys made a decision?

Pardon the delay. Yeah, let's have it in the repository.

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]>
On 10/6/2011 6:29 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>
> Hi, again
>
> Have you guys made a decision?

Pardon the delay. Yeah, let's have it in the repository.

Nice to hear that, thank you :)
Patches attached in this mail.

Is there "What's New" section for Spirit Repository?
BTW, Is it too late for 1.48.0?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel

seek_src.patch (9K) Download Attachment
seek_doc.patch (17K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Joel de Guzman-2
On 10/7/2011 4:42 PM, TONGARI wrote:

> 2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     On 10/6/2011 6:29 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi, again
>     >
>     > Have you guys made a decision?
>
>     Pardon the delay. Yeah, let's have it in the repository.
>
>
> Nice to hear that, thank you :)
> Patches attached in this mail.
>
> Is there "What's New" section for Spirit Repository?

You can add one. Patch welcome :)

> BTW, Is it too late for 1.48.0?

Not yet, it seems:

October 10: branches/release closed for major code changes. Still open
for serious problem fixes and docs changes.

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]>
On 10/7/2011 4:42 PM, TONGARI wrote:
> 2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     On 10/6/2011 6:29 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi, again
>     >
>     > Have you guys made a decision?
>
>     Pardon the delay. Yeah, let's have it in the repository.
>
>
> Nice to hear that, thank you :)
> Patches attached in this mail.
>
> Is there "What's New" section for Spirit Repository?

You can add one. Patch welcome :)

Could you apply the seek_doc.patch first?
Then I can make a patch against the revision.


Thanks.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Joel de Guzman-2
On 10/8/2011 5:14 PM, TONGARI wrote:

> 2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     On 10/7/2011 4:42 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     > 2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     >
>     >     On 10/6/2011 6:29 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     > Hi, again
>     >     >
>     >     > Have you guys made a decision?
>     >
>     >     Pardon the delay. Yeah, let's have it in the repository.
>     >
>     >
>     > Nice to hear that, thank you :)
>     > Patches attached in this mail.
>     >
>     > Is there "What's New" section for Spirit Repository?
>
>     You can add one. Patch welcome :)
>
>
> Could you apply the seek_doc.patch first?
> Then I can make a patch against the revision.

Done. Please check trunk.

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/10/8 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]>
On 10/8/2011 5:14 PM, TONGARI wrote:
> 2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>     On 10/7/2011 4:42 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     > 2011/10/7 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>>
>     >
>     >     On 10/6/2011 6:29 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     > Hi, again
>     >     >
>     >     > Have you guys made a decision?
>     >
>     >     Pardon the delay. Yeah, let's have it in the repository.
>     >
>     >
>     > Nice to hear that, thank you :)
>     > Patches attached in this mail.
>     >
>     > Is there "What's New" section for Spirit Repository?
>
>     You can add one. Patch welcome :)
>
>
> Could you apply the seek_doc.patch first?
> Then I can make a patch against the revision.

Done. Please check trunk.

Checked.
Patch attached, please check.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel

what_s_new.patch (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

Joel de Guzman-2
On 10/8/2011 9:42 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>
> Checked.
> Patch attached, please check.

I've been having second thoughts on having this into Boost V1.48.0.
I think it's best if we let it cycle and settle a bit and have it
in trunk for the next Boost release. Is that OK with you?

Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boostpro.com
http://boost-spirit.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for qi::seek[] directive, next step?

TONGARI J
2011/10/8 Joel de Guzman <[hidden email]>
On 10/8/2011 9:42 PM, TONGARI wrote:
>
> Checked.
> Patch attached, please check.

I've been having second thoughts on having this into Boost V1.48.0.
I think it's best if we let it cycle and settle a bit and have it
in trunk for the next Boost release. Is that OK with you?

No problem. But the version I claimed in what_s_new.patch must be changed.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Spirit-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-devel