From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eric Abrahamsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:28:15 -0700 Message-ID: <87y199j5kg.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <171323742013.5283.3736155251539337632@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20240416031700.9D2B1C1FB45@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87le5dmxuf.fsf@gmx.de> <3800BF0D-113B-44B5-905E-A41B57E8BBB3@gmail.com> <87wmowltel.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <87frvk90it.fsf@web.de> <87jzkwlk3i.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33777"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Michael Heerdegen To: Michael Heerdegen via "Emacs development discussions." Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 20 01:29:15 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rxxfP-0008cp-Sz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2024 01:29:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rxxeg-0001jq-4C; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:28:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rxxed-0001jW-S7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:28:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.ericabrahamsen.net ([52.70.2.18]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rxxeb-0005bI-HT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:28:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (71-212-21-65.tukw.qwest.net [71.212.21.65]) (Authenticated sender: eric@ericabrahamsen.net) by mail.ericabrahamsen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB023FA059; Fri, 19 Apr 2024 23:28:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericabrahamsen.net; s=mail; t=1713569297; bh=LStEtrHorupQdSPAIXwJbZf9lW995pO9G+j4xbHTbDo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=bR2KJDZ9SljUnysUDOpmpH25Fi2NZ0Qs5bEhRIuqkYPfiSQGFmkM+0Wu43W5n25W3 BT+ok01XL8JwzV5mDcDSPVz8A59JAxbsW17pdjhDWyDAA9XmhvigFaUm4SkCPbcWkN J5flW7VQ6p0HCz5+z9JG6PiGuylgiv6KDGKlWG20= In-Reply-To: <87jzkwlk3i.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> (Eric Abrahamsen's message of "Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:54:41 -0700") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=52.70.2.18; envelope-from=eric@ericabrahamsen.net; helo=mail.ericabrahamsen.net X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:317852 Archived-At: Eric Abrahamsen writes: > Michael Heerdegen via "Emacs development discussions." > writes: > >> Hello Eric, >> >> why do you use the term "lambda form" here? >> >> | +@defun peg-run peg-matcher &optional failure-function success-function >> | +This function accepts a single @var{peg-matcher}, which is the result of >> | +calling @code{peg} (see below) on a named rule, usually the entry-point >> | +of a larger grammar. >> | + >> | +At the end of parsing, one of @var{failure-function} or >> | +@var{success-function} is called, depending on whether the parsing >> | +succeeded or not. If @var{success-function} is called, it is passed a >> | +lambda form that runs all the actions collected on the stack during >> | +parsing -- by default this lambda form is simply executed. >> >> AFAIU the function is just passed a function. An anonymous function >> maybe, but certainly a function value, not a function form - so just >> daily business - or do I miss something? > > No, you're right, I was probably just looking at the code and describing > what I was seeing. I've fixed this -- I ended up using "anonymous function" instead, mostly because the sentence was a bit confusing with just "function". Thanks, Eric