World: r3wp
[Parse] Discussion of PARSE dialect
older newer | first last |
BrianH 5-Sep-2010 [5122] | Given your example, you wouldn't want to use DO anyhow since you would be creating a charset in a loop, creating a new charset for each iteration. It is better to create it once ahead of time. |
Fork 5-Sep-2010 [5123x2] | Hrrrm. I haven't messed with block parsing much, but it breaks any obvious intuition that >> parse [[2]] [do [(1 + 1)]] is true and >> parse [2] [do [(1 + 1)]] is also true. :-{ |
Is there a foundational reason for DO not being available for string parsing, or is it just not implemented? | |
Micha 5-Sep-2010 [5125] | how to set local vars in parse ? rule: [ "text" (var: "local") ] var: "global" f: func [ /local var ] [parse "test" rule return var ] f ; result = none not "local" what to do get result = "local" |
Nicolas 5-Sep-2010 [5126] | ;Does this help? rule: [ "text" (var: "local") ] var: "global" f: func [ /local var ] [var: "local" parse "test" rule return var ] f |
Graham 5-Sep-2010 [5127x2] | f: has [ var rule ][ var: none rule: [ "text" end (var: copy "local" ) ] parse/all [ "text" ] rule var ] |
you're using a block parse rule to parse a string .. so we switched to using a data block to parse | |
Nicolas 5-Sep-2010 [5129] | ;This also works var: "global" f: has [var] [ rule: [ "test" (var: "local") ] parse "test" rule var ] f |
Steeve 5-Sep-2010 [5130x2] | Actually, DO is really easy to simulate, both in R2 and R3. Just construct the rule on the fly. >> parse [2][(rule: do [1 + 1]) 1 1 rule] ==true |
Remember, all new commands in R3 can be emulated in R2. | |
Micha 5-Sep-2010 [5132] | and what if rule ic create dynamic form file in global words and can not by create in functions ? |
Steeve 5-Sep-2010 [5133] | sorry ? |
Anton 5-Sep-2010 [5134x2] | I think he meant to ask "and what if RULE is created dynamically (ie. loaded from a file) and thus its words are global, and are not (or cannot be) created by functions?" |
Nicolas, your example does not work: | |
Steeve 5-Sep-2010 [5136] | ah ok thanks for the translation. BIND and BIND? are the keys |
Anton 5-Sep-2010 [5137] | rule: [ "text" (var: "local") ] var: "global" f: func [ /local var ] [var: "funclocal" parse "text" rule return var ] f ;== "funclocal" var ;== "local" |
Ladislav 5-Sep-2010 [5138] | It is quite hard to decipher what actually Micha meant, I suppose, he wanted this? rule: ["text" (var: "local")] var: "global" f: func [/local var] [parse "text" bind rule 'var return var] |
Micha 5-Sep-2010 [5139x2] | ok thanx |
this code good works | |
Anton 5-Sep-2010 [5141x2] | Nicolas, I refer to your first example. The error is that FUNC binds the words in its body block to its context, but this binding does not extend to reaching inside the block referred to by the RULE word. This error might have arisen because of a small typo, parsing "text", not "test", which RULE matches. |
("arisen" -> "survived") | |
BrianH 5-Sep-2010 [5143x4] | Fork, I didn't know about the paren-in-a-block form of the DO parameter. That is weird. I can't figure out why that form would be supported - it wasn't in the proposal. |
Is there a foundational reason for DO not being available for string parsing, or is it just not implemented? There are a lot of things that you can do in block parsing that you can't in string parsing. In this case, the result of DO is compared directly as a REBOL value. Strings don't directly contain REBOL values the way that blocks do. Even if you tried to limit the result types of the expression and trigger an error if they don't match, what you are left with isn't useful enough to justify adding it, imo. For instance, in your example it was a bad idea to use DO. We'll see though. | |
Micha, there was a direct solution proposed for this in the parse proposals, specifically to deal with local variables in recursive parse rules. However, it turns out that PARSE isn't really recursive: It fakes it. So there was no way to support this feature in a parse directive. The best way to do the local variables is to put the PARSE call and the rules in a function, and if you have to use recursive rules, recursively call that function in an IF (...) operation. It really works well, in a roundabout sort of way. | |
Nicolas, in R3 especially it is better to directly put the rules in the function, rather than refer to external rules. The DECODE-URL method is really crappy in R3 because it isn't recursion-safe or task-safe. (Reminder: We must fix that for R3 when we go over the mezzanines for task-safety.) | |
Maxim 5-Sep-2010 [5147x2] | micha, you can also just push and pop values in a block you use like a stack. you push before setting to a variable, you pop after the rule. you just have to make sure to only push/pop once a complete rule is matched. meaning you handle that in a paren at the END of the rule. |
there are a few example floating around, you should find one if you google it. | |
Anton 6-Sep-2010 [5149] | Remember that Micha's English isn't good. I don't think he can understand what you guys are saying without a lot of effort in translation. It might be better to try to make your points in code. |
Fork 6-Sep-2010 [5150] | @BrianH: If you're string parsing, couldn't it run to-string on the result of DO? |
Ladislav 8-Sep-2010 [5151] | The best way to do the local variables is to put the PARSE call and the rules in a function, and if you have to use recursive rules, recursively call that function in an IF (...) operation. It really works well, in a roundabout sort of way. - this is too much of a roundabout for most cases, I have to add |
BrianH 10-Sep-2010 [5152x2] | Fork, that won't work on some return types, and that would lead to runtime errors. But in theory, yes. |
Ladislav, true. But since PARSE doesn't really recurse, the only direct way to have local variables would be to BIND/copy the parse rules for each level of recursion. Doing the function recursion method is actually more efficient and easier than that. | |
Ladislav 11-Sep-2010 [5154] | I guess, that it is the time to propose a reasonable and efficient method |
Ladislav 13-Sep-2010 [5155] | I defined a USE-RULE function yielding a rule with local variables. Now I wonder where to publish it. |
Gregg 13-Sep-2010 [5156] | REBOL.org, or perhaps your own site for now? Or as a wiki page linked from PARSE docs? |
Ladislav 13-Sep-2010 [5157] | http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=REBOL_Programming/Language_Features/Parse&stable=0#USE_rule |
Gregg 13-Sep-2010 [5158] | Thanks Ladislav. What do 'fni and 'fnii stand for? I would certainly add a comment or doc string that USE-RULE is recursive/thread safe, which is why it's not much simpler. |
Ladislav 13-Sep-2010 [5159] | FNI is just "fixed guts" of the CONTEXT-FN put in the CONTEXT-FN function body as a function to not intefere with the context. FNII is "dynamic guts" of CONTEXT-FN. By assigning different functions to the FNII variable we adjust what the CONTEXT-FN is actually doing. |
Gregg 13-Sep-2010 [5160] | Sorry, I meant to ask what the words were abbreviations for. |
Ladislav 13-Sep-2010 [5161] | FN - internals (aka "guts") |
Gregg 13-Sep-2010 [5162x3] | Ah, thanks. |
So, something like 'inner-body. | |
And 'inner-inner-body. :-) | |
Ladislav 13-Sep-2010 [5165x2] | yes, I wanted to have a FNII variable referring to a function having access to the CONTEXT-FNs context without being influenced directly by the context |
...and yet influencing what the CONTEXT-FN is actually doing | |
Gregg 13-Sep-2010 [5167] | It's another great example of bending REBOL to your will with a great deal of control. |
Ladislav 13-Sep-2010 [5168x2] | If I wanted to do it just in R2, it could have been simpler, but R3 is more picky about what it allows |
(in R2 you can directly modify the CONTEXT-FN, which is protected in R3) | |
Gregg 13-Sep-2010 [5170x2] | Does it look like I understand it, based on these comments? |
set 'use-rule func [ "Create a recursion and thread-safe parse rule with local variables. R2/R3 compatible." words [block!] "Local word(s) to the parse rule" rule [block!] "Parse rule" ] [ make object! [ ; Create a new function context. 'Inner-body refers to a function ; with access to CONTEXT-FN's context without being influenced ; directly by the context. spec: copy [/local] append spec words inner-body: func ['word] [inner-inner-body word] context-fn: func spec reduce [:inner-body first words] ; Bind the rule the caller gave us to the new context we just created. inner-inner-body: func [word] [bind/copy rule word] bound-rule: context-fn ; Now define the use rule. Because this is an "active" rule, ; with state we need to include some state variables used ; by the internal PARSE call ('pos and 'success). pos: none success: none inner-inner-body: func [word] [ ; If the parse of the rule succeeds, we set the parse position ; to the where the rule match ended, otherwise we don't change ; the parse position and use [end skip] to return a false ; result (for R2 compatibility). success: either parse pos [bound-rule pos: to end] [ [:pos] ] [ [end skip] ] ] set 'rule copy/deep [pos: (context-fn) success] ] rule ] | |
older newer | first last |