Re: Regexps and strings once again

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1368 bytes --]

On 09/14/2014 07:14 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> On 09/14/2014 04:27 PM, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>>> (dom-by-id dom (regexp "I \\(couldn't\\)?haz new syntax"))
> 
> `regexp' could just as well take a new syntax.  And it doesn't have to
> return a string with a funny text-property but can really return a new
> kind of object.
> 
> I think it could be fairly elegant.
> 
>>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> writes:
>> I've been working on an NFA combinator facility lately.  The basic idea
>> is that you don't work in terms of regular expressions per se, but in
>> terms of state-matching machines (like the ones Ragel has) that you can
>> combine using the standard union, repeat, negative, and intersection
>> operators.
> 
> Do you really mean NFA or are you actually manipulating DFAs?
> If NFAs, how do you implement intersection?

Actual NFAs --- the kinda-sorta working code is in the Jezebel repo;
I've been adding arbitrary predicate support. DFA construction just
produces an NFA object that happens not to contain any ambiguity, which
recognizer generators can treat specially. I haven't actually
implemented intersection yet, although I suspect the dumb union-negation
algorithm should be good enough after DFA construction and minimization.
If it isn't, I'll just see what Ragel does and do that.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]