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:

Michiel Helvensteijn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:03:21 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (164 lines)

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Bruno Le Floch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks for your interest in l3regex (and thanks to Lars for many
> useful comments, and to Paulo for the undeserved performance praise).

And thank you for your extensive reply.

>> 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)?

Good questions. So far I've only needed to define lexemes containing
'letter', 'space' and 'other' catcodes, beginning with a 'letter' or
'other', though I've also hacked in a way to pick up balanced
brace-groups in-between and pass them as arguments to the expansion
text.

I've so far been using it for math-mode only. The idea is to declare
new lexemes like this:

\LexDef {──►} {\longrightarrow}

The package then updates the internal automaton to recognize the
sequence and makes '◄' math-active, set to start scanning whenever it
is encountered. Using 'maximal munch', it will scan ahead to match the
largest lexeme it recognizes, replaces it inline with the proper
output and feeds any extra tokens that were consumed back into the
input stream afterwards.

Here's an example that picks up an argument:

\LexDef {─�─►} {\xrightarrow{#1}}

This would recognize something like ─{x}─► and replace it with
\xrightarrow{x}. I've also used the package to:
* make kerning / style corrections without cluttering the main LaTeX code
* hyperlink a math symbol to where it was defined
* generate a symbol index.

> 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?

The user defines new regexes (either directly or indirectly).

> Is the end-goal only to lex, or is there a parsing step afterwards?

For the foreseeable future it will stay at lexing. (Though
interestingly, if it ever does turn into a full-fledged parser, we
could even perform rudimentary type-checking on the math.)

>> 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.

Doesn't that break recommended expl3 practice? There are no registers,
there are no macros. There are only variables. ;-)

> 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.

This would be fine. Though I'm forced to wonder if there would be
anything left for my own package to do. ;-)

>> 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).
>
> 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.

Usually an array is made available, in which the 0th element contains
the full match and subsequent elements contain the submatches. That
may be a bit overkill here, but what about something like this:

"\regex_run:NnN" to run compiled regex #1 on token list #2 and package
all pertinent results in variable #3. Then "\regex_get_match:Nn" would
leave the #2th match stored in variable #1 in the input stream.

A variation like "\regex_run:NN" would read from the input stream instead.

>> 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 admit I'm not an expert on automata theory. But I suspect that much
of the 'keeping track' and 'branch priority' stuff that you now do at
runtime could be used to generate a DFA that can do the same
on-the-fly. I haven't really looked into this, however. Perhaps you do
lose subgroup information in the translation to a DFA.

> 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 pondering the same thing. Ideally, computing the
intersections of all relevant character-classes and taking those to be
your alphabet would be best. But this requires knowing the full regex
at compile-time. No additional regexes can be 'compiled into it'
afterwards, as it may contain new partially overlapping
character-classes. Though I suppose that's acceptable.

> 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.

Presumably a 'regex unit' could accumulate named alternatives, and
then be given the command to compile:

\regex_new:N \my_regex
\regex_insert_pattern:Nnn \my_regex {pattern 1} {\d+}
\regex_insert_pattern:Nnn \my_regex {pattern 2} {[A-F0-9a-f]+}
\regex_insert_pattern:Nnn \my_regex {pattern 3} {hello world}
\regex_compile:NN \my_regex \compiled_regex

But there are many other ways to do it, like assuming the root of the
regex to be a list of alternatives "a | b | c | ..." and then
identifying them by index.

-- 
www.mhelvens.net

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