World: r3wp

i just have a doubt, in my scripts i like using parse to change a 
serie. Some of this rules are recursives so that they can apply several 
modifications on modifications. In such a case i would break your 
rule to not  return in the same point.

That is why it would be optional.

By recursives you meant iteratives. Recursives don't use loops.

I have a set of rules in an any block wich apply modifications, the 
same block of rules is applied until there is no more modifications.
I don't know h

how to call that

That is iterative changes. Each round of changes is an iteration.

ok

That kind of thing can be very powerful. As long as you have a fixpoint 
(a reachable condition to break you of the loop) you'll be fine.

yeah i know it's difficult to create, but when it works it's incredibly 
compact and powerfull, i like compactness

Rewrite rules usually work this way.

about your proposal i just will say that is not an high request but 
if it's free i take it

I think it will be better to include this in the tracing infrastructure.

ok another proposal

currently when we parsing a serie we can't mix constant string! and 
constant binaries together

we have to choose depending of the type of the serie

That will be moreso in R3 because string! and binary! aren't compatible 
any more.

Unicode changes. A binary is a series of bytes, a string is a series 
of codepoints.

AS-STRING and AS_BINARY are gone.

but at certain point a string can be converted to a binary an vice 
versa

Yes, but that is a real conversion, with encoding and decoding.

Just like converting from a .jpg to an image! and back.

when u say 'real' u mean a large time consuming conversion ?

Hopefully not time-consuming but definitely large, depending on the 
size of the string.

The Unicode changes were pretty significant and deep.

not the subject, but speaking of consuming operations, what about 
the old idea to have subset of serie (range) without the need to 
copy/part series ?

Carl spoken of that in the past

*abouty

It was rejected as a base type because it was deemed unnecessary, 
but could be added as a UDT.

UDT ?

about proposals, currently we have only one atom operation to control 
advance in the serie: [skip].
We could had some other atom operations, like DROP,SWAP,ROT,DUP.
(any reference to FORTH language are intentional)

don't ask me an usage, it's only because i'm currently working on 
a FORTH engine

UDT = user-defined datatype!, a planned feature of R3. Yes, this 
includes user-defined function types in theory.

DROP, SWAP, ROT and DUP are stack modification operations, not parse 
advancement operations like SKIP. Don't forget REVERSE and matching 
operations - they advance too.

My bad: REVERSE doesn't advance.

i know what they are (trust me) it was a sort of transposition to 
parse

image just that parsing a serie is like working with a stack, the 
analogy is not as bad as you think

*imagine

in an other way, SWAP, ROT, DUP or DROP are not just advance operations 
, they modify the serie too.

... I really don't what could be their usage, forget that...

*don't know

Just some ideas for possible usage.


[[item1 item2 | item2 item1 SWAP] ]   ; Put previous two matched 
items in order.
==> [item1 item2]  ; Always sorted.


[ROT [a b c d e]] ;  Rotate items matched by next subrule, if it 
matches. 
==> [b c d e a]  ; 


[start: a [b c] DUP start]  ; Duplicate items from start to current 
parse index.
==>  [a b c a b c]


[a DROP [b c]] ; If next subrule matches, then remove items matched, 
and set parse index back to the beginning of the remove.
==>  [a]

(DROP is just like REMOVE, so not really needed, I think. Just doing 
the exercise to see.)

The above can be categorized by how they fetch their arguments:
- Take two previously matched items/subrules (like SWAP).
- Match the next subrule (like ROT, DROP).
- Use a variable to take the parse index (like DUP).

well done Anton. To have a more genralized form, all these operations 
could work on an Index, like your DUP

We can implement DUP today using our own function (not a parse command). 
The equivalent to above DUP example would be:

[start: a [b c] finish: (DUP start finish length: finish - start) 
skip length]
or maybe

[start: a [b c] finish: (DUP start 'finish) :finish]  ; (where DUP 
modifies 'finish)

So that's what the DUP command would save us.

BrianH: as for parse catching infinite loops - don't you think that 
ppl would always want to be protected by such a feature? So why not 
make it standard? How usefull is parse, if it loops infinitely? Your 
app hangs, or crashes anyway ...

not always. if you need maximal speed. and you  trust the data and 
rules.

Hanging parsers to me is usually a problem when developing them.

Steve said in r3-alpha world:

Sometimes some of my parse rules can take overnight to resolve on 
some complex random files...and I would like to be able to set a 
time limit in parse so that if it is recursively grinding on time, 
that I can halt it

So Steve needs to leave his parse rule unattended for long periods.

And when he returns, if it timed out, he wants to see where it got 
up to.