World: r3wp
[Parse] Discussion of PARSE dialect
older newer | first last |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5032] | yes |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5033] | Have I missed anything ? |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5034x2] | just that comment may not be on line beginning so far |
and you want to get just the first block? Skipping any content before it? | |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5036x2] | Ok, yes, it may be preceded by whitespace. That seems easy to deal with. |
Well, I'd like the algorithm to be general enough to get any number of block in the file. So far I need just the first, second and last blocks. | |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5038] | And you need to parse the Altme's *.set files or something else as well? |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5039x3] | The *.set files are what I need it for, yes. |
I imagine it could be useful in other similar situations, so I'd like it to be pretty general. I suppose a bonus functionality is to be able to get nested blocks. (And a super bonus will be to get any datatype at any level, but I won't bother doing that until I need it.) | |
Um, actually, I remember years ago I wanted to load the rebol header of many files, avoiding loading the whole of each file. | |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5042] | Also char! must be supported: #"[" |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5043x2] | So this algorithm could be used for that, too. |
Must it ? I think if I can parse single-line strings correctly, then a bracket inside won't cause a problem. This means I'll be basically ignoring datatypes which allow strings in their syntax, and just jumping to the string part. | |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5045] | you are right |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5046x8] | I don't think there's any way to make any type with a literal bracket in it (except blocks, of course). (But I am worrying about that a bit.) |
I tried to make some words with a single unmatched literal bracket, or literal string delimiter, but I failed so far. They don't load, so they won't be in well-formed rebol format files. | |
And then I tried issues, files, and I can't do it there, either. | |
One caveat: Misidentifying as a block, types like (what are they called?) "inline types"? eg. #[none] If I don't recognise it as none! (or maybe issue!) , then I might accidentally take it as a block. | |
Or how about this: #[block! [hello]] I would probably want to extract [hello], but if I don't recognise this form, then I'd get [block! [hello]] instead. | |
But that's ok, I can probably tweak the parse rule to support those later. | |
Does anyone have any advice on how I should structure this algorithm? I don't feel confident as I haven't studied parsing theory deeply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing Should I do lexical analysis and syntactic analysis separately ? I think I can do it all with just one parse, but it might not be a good idea. | |
I'll make a start. | |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5054x3] | try this: http://box.lebeda.ws/~hmm/rebol/load-first-block.r but it's not well tested. You can make the chunk size better. It's just 200 bytes just to not find the block easily in the first one. |
(bigger) | |
It will not be bug free yet.. the case like #[block! [hello]] will fail now as I'm reviewing it. | |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5057] | Having a look. Thanks for posting that. |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5058] | Also the chunk inside comment line will fail now.. so it's far to be complete yet. |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5059] | I have to say you pulled that out pretty quickly. |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5060] | the load-last-block function would be more complicated. |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5061x2] | I just found something interesting. I remember Gabriele saying he thought PARSE would convert chars it encountered in its rule with strings before using, so these are equivalent: parse "a" [#"a"] parse "a" ["a"] (Of course, the first one is a char and not a string, so consumes less memory.) But I was just thinking it might be clearer to use strings instead of chars in the parse rule. Then I discovered you can use issues: parse "a" [#a] and the escape characters is interesting as you only need to type one of them in the issue: parse "^^" [#^] |
Anyway, that's a side-issue. | |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5063] | I would not use it.. I think you chould use char! where you expect char!. btw... the script is updated, but would require some test-cases (for chunk bordes inside strings/blocks/comments) to make it safe for use. |
Anton 30-Jul-2010 [5064x2] | Thankyou very much for this contribution. |
It's time for me to sleep. Good night. | |
BrianH 30-Jul-2010 [5066] | Anton, the cost of disk reads dwarfs the cost of LOAD/next. And PARSE is much slower at loading REBOL data than LOAD. You might consider finding out the max size of the value you are loading, rounded up to multiples of 4096 (disk blocks), and just READ/part a bit more than that from the disk for each file. Then LOAD/next from the resulting string. There is no reason to do speculative reads once you have an upper bound on the size you will need to read. In a language like REBOL, minimizing disk reads sometimes means minimizing the number of calls to READ, not just the amount read. |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5067x3] | My script is much more faster.. when I do: tm: func [count [integer!] code [block!] /local t][t: now/time/precise loop count code probe now/time/precise - t] tm 10 [ dir: %/F/REBOL\altme\worlds\rebol3\chat\ foreach file read dir [ load-first-block dir/:file ] ] tm 10 [ dir: %/F/REBOL\altme\worlds\rebol3\chat\ foreach file read dir [ first load/next dir/:file ] ] the result is: 0:00:01.047 0:00:06.39 |
of course with chunk size of 1024 | |
0:00:00.968 for chunk 512 | |
BrianH 30-Jul-2010 [5070x3] | Oldes, did you notice that I wrote READ/part, not READ ? |
And loading from the resulting string, not the file? | |
If you are reading from a hard drive there is no point to using a chunk size of less than 4096. For floppies, 512 will do. | |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5073x3] | load-first-block2: func[file /local port buffer result tmp ][ port: open/direct file buffer: copy "" result: none chunks: 0 until [ chunks: chunks + 1 if any [ chunks > 10 none? tmp: copy/part port 512 ] [close port return none] insert tail buffer tmp not error? try [result: first load/next buffer] ] close port result ] |
is faster... a little bit... 0:00:00.859 | |
But we are in "parse" topic so we were making parse solution. | |
BrianH 30-Jul-2010 [5076] | LOAD parses. |
Oldes 30-Jul-2010 [5077x3] | ok.. the precise topic is: Parse (Discussing of PARSE dialect)... anyway.. I started as well asking why not to use load/next. |
btw.. the second function is not complete as it does not check for block but any rebol value. | |
Btw... what would be best way to get the last block of the file without loading complete file? | |
Steeve 30-Jul-2010 [5080] | impossible |
BrianH 30-Jul-2010 [5081] | Your solution is similar to what I suggested, but is missing a couple speedups: - Getting an estimate of how many characters the value would take on the high end, and using that as the initial read part. - Chunk value reflecting hard disk sector value (the OS may load in 4096 byte blocks) |
older newer | first last |