World: r3wp
[Parse] Discussion of PARSE dialect
older newer | first last |
Ladislav 15-Mar-2011 [5514] | How to use it: check the examples at the bottom |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5515x2] | yes... the concept of "rule sets" is not straightforward :) what do you mean by this? |
OK... very nice indeed! But can I use "unknown variable" | |
Ladislav 15-Mar-2011 [5517x4] | the rule sets are described in the comments to the SRA, STD and RLE functions |
>> mold sra [3 - 3 + 3] translate == "[subtract 3 add 3 3]" >> mold std [3 - 3 + 3] translate == "[add subtract 3 3 3]" | |
unknown variable ? you need to use the %use-rule.r script: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=use-rule.r | |
I guess, that you actually want to use just the STD function | |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5521] | I will adopt your script! Impressive. But i am still wondering if with the strategy in my script it would be possible to implement associativity properly? |
Ladislav 15-Mar-2011 [5522x3] | well, if you modify it appropriately, why not? |
except, that it requires some care, since all the operators you use are left-associative, except for the exponentiation operator, which is right-associative | |
>> std [3 ** 3 ** 3] translate == [power 3 power 3 3] >> std [3 * 3 * 3] translate == [multiply multiply 3 3 3] | |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5525] | THat's why parsing reversal and taking care of ** specifically might be a good start... |
Ladislav 15-Mar-2011 [5526x2] | Parsing reversal does not help IMO, because you have to process both left- and right-associativity at the same time |
Notice, that my script parses left to right | |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5528x4] | I think I found a way... see you later today (or tomorraow). Again, many thanks for your feedback and congrat for your impressive script |
It was actually so easy to fix: 5 'append to change into 'insert... I still have to check this does not break anything before posting a new version on rebol.org. Ladislav... thank you again for pointing this bug! | |
Voilą... I renamed my script as parse-expression.r and it is on rebol.org ... http://www.rebol.org/script-information.r?script-name=parse-expression.r I just had to repace 5 'append into 'insert, so it fixing this big did not brak the "philosophy" of the implementation. Ouf :) Example: >> do parse-expression "-(-3+2)+3-2+3-sqrt((1+2)**2)-2**3+34" == 28.0 | |
@Endo: I tried exponent with ^, but as it is the escape character for rebol, i consistently end up with an error. If enyone can help on this! For the english comment, I promise I will take the time to translate the french comments soon. | |
Gregg 15-Mar-2011 [5532] | Nice work Francois. Good conversation here too, with important details brought out by Ladislav. |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5533x2] | Yes... Ladislav reminds me some basic math! God, I felt so stupid about this associativity bug! The reason why I developped parse-expression.r is because I need it to build an companion app for one of the best math book: Calculus 3d edition from Smith & Minton! For now, I have developped a rebol library to transform any vid face into a function plotter, and parse-expression.r allows me to use human readable expression in the gui instead of guru rebol code :) |
Ladislav: How would you interpret x**-1/2 : (1) [divide power x -1 2] or (2) [power x divide -1 2] A previous version of parse-expression.r returned (2)... but i considered this as a bug and changed it for (1) (see history 0.9.2 in the header of the script). But now, with our discussion on associativity, i am not sure anymore... Thanks for your help! | |
Steeve 15-Mar-2011 [5535] | Precedence of ** is higher than / The right form should be (1) |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5536] | Thanks, this confirms my feeling |
Steeve 15-Mar-2011 [5537x3] | the associativity concern operators with same precedence. ** is right associative, the other ones are left associative |
So, 2 ** 3 ** 4 is evaluated from rigth to left | |
like 2 ** (3 ** 4) | |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5540x2] | >> expr: parse-expression "2**3**4" == [power 2.0 power 3.0 4.0] It works :) |
hehehe... It has been a long time since I had to implement such a challenging problem. It is so fun! | |
Steeve 15-Mar-2011 [5542] | Must have something like yours somewhere, I used the stack approach though |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5543] | like the HP48... I would like to see your stack approach. Should be interesting. |
Steeve 15-Mar-2011 [5544x2] | Lot of sources everywhere. But I will look for it tomorrow. |
I used this way http://www.programmersheaven.com/2/Art_Expressions_p1 | |
Geocaching 15-Mar-2011 [5546] | Thanks for the link. Seems like I did some kind of tree way... |
Ladislav 15-Mar-2011 [5547x2] | >> std [1 ** - 2 / 3] translate == [divide power 1 negate 2 3] |
, i.e. you could as well "consult" the %evaluate.r script | |
Geocaching 16-Mar-2011 [5549] | A new version (0.9.5) of parse-expression.r is available on rebol.org (http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=parse-expression.r). This fixes two bugs I found when writing the documentation, which is also available on rebol.org |
Gregg 16-Mar-2011 [5550] | Francois, don't forget to post update notices to the Announce group as well. |
Maxim 19-Apr-2011 [5551x2] | in R2 is there a single word which terminates all depths of parse rules? I can't remember |
hehe... I've been trying things for 15 minutes and just as I write this... I finally get it... hehehe 'END. | |
BrianH 19-Apr-2011 [5553] | That triggers a backtrack to an alternate if there is one. |
Maxim 19-Apr-2011 [5554x3] | yeah... I just did a few tests, and it doesn't work in my case, which generates and endless rule :-( |
anything else? | |
I'm parsing code and I want to stop at any syntax error... right now I have no clue what to do! | |
BrianH 19-Apr-2011 [5557] | END means end-of-input, not end-of-rule. If you really want to break out, try putting the parse call in a LOOP 1 and then BREAK in a paren, or in a function and RETURN or EXIT. |
Maxim 19-Apr-2011 [5558x2] | ah, loop 1 [] ... good idea I guess I can also force the end of the string... by using this old trick... [here: (here: tail here) :here] though using break in a loop is much easier in my case. |
thx for the tip... its odd that I've never had to solve this case before , after all these years of parsing :-) | |
BrianH 19-Apr-2011 [5560] | If you want to fail to an alternate, you can assign the block [end skip] to a variable that would normally be set to none, and then make references to that variable whenever you want to trigger a failure condition. |
Maxim 19-Apr-2011 [5561] | yeah.. I've already done that one, that's what I usually need... but in this case, there is only one success and many failures... so its much more work to include the exit rule everywhere. |
BrianH 19-Apr-2011 [5562x2] | opt-fail: none parse "abc" [some [["a" | "b" | (opt-fail: [end skip])] opt-fail]] |
If there is only one success and many failures, you can make failure the default and set it to something non-failing in the success case. If you need to distinguish between failures, set a local variable with some distinguishing data. Remember, a predictable failure is just an unwanted success. | |
older newer | first last |