LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  October 2013

LATEX-L October 2013

Subject:

Re: l3regex feature request + a question about the implementation

From:

Bruno Le Floch <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 26 Oct 2013 03:35:27 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (165 lines)

Hello Michiel,

Thanks for your interest in l3regex (and thanks to Lars for many
useful comments, and to Paulo for the undeserved performance praise).
I've been focusing on l3fp lately (finishing up the code for inverse
trigonometric functions, which should be done in a week or two).  I'll
try to answer most things raised in this thread, but I might miss
some.  Also, I should say that I haven't looked at l3regex in a loong
time, so it will take me some time before I can modify the code (don't
expect changes before the end of November).

> a lexical analyzer package

It would be helpful if you can describe what you are trying to do more
precisely.  Do you work with strings of characters only (i.e., the
category code does not matter, as in most programming languages), or
tokens (control sequences, usual characters, special characters)?  Is
your goal to have a lexer for a specific set of tokens, fixed once and
for all, or do you want the lexer to be given by its set of regexes by
the user of your package?  Is the end-goal only to lex, or is there a
parsing step afterwards?  In that case, it may be better to use a PEG
packrat parser, rather than a combination of a lexer and a more
conventional parser (for context free/context sensitive grammars...).


> I'd like to match against a compiled regex, but feed it one token at a
> time, rather than the entire token list at once.

This is doable but more difficult than it seems.  Essentially, you
want to run some code between calls to l3regex, while keeping the data
of l3regex from one call to the next.

The data of l3regex (list of states for the current branches and
subgroup info) is stored into various TeX registers (\toks, \dimen,
\skip, \muskip...), hence during the operation of l3regex, none of the
usual \..._dim, \..._skip, or \..._muskip variables have their correct
values (even \c_zero_dim, which is just one of the \dimen registers
behind the scenes).  Because of this, all of the work must be done
within a group, and the data is discarded at the end of the group,
before returning the appropriate result to the user.

Running arbitrary user code within this group would lead to weird bugs
as soon as the user's code involves any register (this may happen
behind the scenes, as some functions may expect \c_max_int to have its
appropriate value, for instance).  The other option is to provide
functions which save the data in a csname, and functions which accept
a regex and starting data as an input.  Should the data be stored
together with the regex, i.e., should I introduce a "partially applied
regex" type?  Should the regex and the data be independent arguments
(I think not, as the data is only consistent with the particular regex
that "fathered" it)?

In any case, another difficulty is that you will not be able to feed
unbalanced tokens (braces) to l3regex, only balanced token lists (no
problem there, doing a few tokens at a time rather than just one
should be as easy).

A completely different approach would be that I ask you how the tokens
are generated.  If it is from the input stream (e.g., you are using
\futurelet or the \peek_... functions to find tokens to feed l3regex),
then l3regex could directly provide tools to read tokens from the
input stream until the regex cannot match anymore.  This avoids the
business above of storing data, because we are not running arbitrary
user code, so everything can be done within the same group.


> At each point in
> between, I want to know whether a match is still possible. If not, I
> want to go back one step and retrieve the captured groups (and perhaps
> other available meta-data).

Going just one step back would lead to a partially matched regex only,
and the notion of captured group is a bit fuzzy: I don't know what
matching "abcZ" against the regex "a(bcd)e" should give as a captured
group once "Z" is seen to allow no match.

You change this later on to "going back all the way to the previous
accepting state".  This is rather straightforward, given that the
"previous accepting state" is essentially stored somewhere.  The main
question will be what the best interface is, and I currently have
absolutely no idea.  Proposals welcome.


> You're now running a regex as a NFA (Nondeterministic
> Finite Automaton), keeping track of all active branches while matching
> against an input.

Not quite: I don't keep track of branches (that would allow me to do
backreferences, but would be very expensive), only of states which are
reached by those branches, and only one set of subgroup info per
reached state.

> Is there a particular reason you're not translating
> it into a DFA (Deterministic Finite Automaton) during the compilation
> phase, i.e., applying the powerset construction?

Yes: I couldn't even figure out how to keep track of subgroup info and
remove epsilon transitions from my NFA.  Shifting to a DFA would make
things even more tricky.  Also, I'm not sure about the gain when
keeping track of subgroups, because a given state of the DFA still
requires storing multiple sets of subgroup info (one for each NFA
state that the DFA state corresponds to).

I'd rather not make the code longer than it is, but in principle, I
could decide to only convert to a DFA if no subgroup info is tracked.
If I do that, a lazy powerset construction should be best suited, as
Lars notes.  I'm just not clear whether this construction interacts
well with ranges:  Given the (silly) regex ( \d+ | [A-F0-9a-f]+ HEX ),
the first time I encounter a digit, I'll add a transition in the DFA
from the empty set to a pair of NFA states (one for each side of the
alternative).  If another use of the same NFA/DFA hybrid also receives
a digit (other than the first) as its first character, will I add a
distinct transition from the empty set to the same two-NFA-states
state, with a different label?  Or should I try to detect that the
intersection of \d and [A-F0-9a-f] is [0-9]?


> I've been thinking about that. Why not memoize a
> regex-to-minimized-DFA translation in an auxiliary file? That way you
> only have to compile a new regex once, even across LaTeX runs.

We have not decided what we'd do for auxiliary files in expl3 (and
later on LaTeX3) yet, so I'm not using the .aux file.

>> One possible alternative is to
>> use a NFA and applying Thompson's construction or a similar algorithm
>
> I assume this is what l3regex already does, to construct the NFA.

Yep.



>>> (2) I would also need the ability to merge new (N|D)FA's into an
>>> existing one and mark the corresponding accepting states with an
>>> identifier. I could then query this identifier when a match was found,
>>> so I could know which original pattern(s) matched.
>>
>> Doable, but whichever way you do it, you effectively end up executing all
>> the component automata in parallel. With DFAs, the new state space is the
>> cartesian product of the component state spaces. With NFAs, you have a
>> set
>> of active branches for each component automaton. So if you're anyway
>> feeding
>> data to your automaton one token at a time, then you might as well feed
>> each
>> token to a sequence of automata instead.
>
> Properly merging DFA's will gain you plenty if some rudimentary
> optimizations are performed. But not so much for NFA's, as you say,
> which is a shame. I've defined near 200 separate math-mode lexemes in
> my thesis so far. I wouldn't want to start up 200 automata for every
> potential occurrence. My current implementation uses a trie, i.e., a
> very primitive DFA.

Do you really need to merge NFA's on the fly, or could you simply use
an alternation such as ( \d+ | [a-zA-Z]\w* | ... ) ?  Then we would
simply need a way to extract the information of which alternative was
taken.  Doable, but I have no idea what syntax would be good.  I agree
with Lars concerning performance.  Branches in the NFA will very
quickly die if the word does not match the corresponding alternative.


Best regards,
Bruno

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager