r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[Parse] Discussion of PARSE dialect

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.