Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Michael Albinus]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

Hi Eric,

>  doc/lispref/peg.texi  | 128 +++++++++++++++++---------------------------------
>  lisp/progmodes/peg.el |   7 +--
>  2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/lispref/peg.texi b/doc/lispref/peg.texi
> index fbf57852ee0..90aa76988db 100644
> --- a/doc/lispref/peg.texi
> +++ b/doc/lispref/peg.texi
> @@ -1,78 +1,31 @@
> -@c -*-texinfo-*-
> -@c This is part of the GNU Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.
> -@c Copyright (C) 1990--1995, 1998--1999, 2001--2023 Free Software
> -@c Foundation, Inc.
> -@c See the file elisp.texi for copying conditions.
> -@node Parsing Expression Grammars
> -@chapter Parsing Expression Grammars
> -@cindex text parsing
> -@cindex parsing expression grammar
> -@cindex PEG

...

It looks, like the beginning of peg.texi has been removed accidently.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Mattias Engdegård]

16 apr. 2024 kl. 12.00 skrev Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>:

> It looks, like the beginning of peg.texi has been removed accidently.

I reverted the commit since it was such an obvious mistake. (Hope you don't mind.)

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com> writes:

> 16 apr. 2024 kl. 12.00 skrev Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>:
>
>> It looks, like the beginning of peg.texi has been removed accidently.
>
> I reverted the commit since it was such an obvious mistake. (Hope you don't mind.)

I certainly don't mind, thank you for coming to my rescue. I seem to be
slightly cursed recently.

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:18:56 -0700
>> 
>> 
>> On 04/14/24 07:58 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> >> Cc: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> >> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:36:14 -0400
>> >> 
>> >> > Ping!  Eric, any progress with this?
>> >> 
>> >> I fixed the test failures.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Eric, this leaves the documentation-related comments in my message
>> > from 2 weeks ago; could you please take care of those?
>> 
>> Done! Thank you for the push, and thanks to Stefan for fixing the tests.
>> 
>> I hope the docs read a bit better now -- I've also removed the mention
>> that `peg-parse' could also accept a single list of PEXS, as I don't
>> think it can any more (and I don't think it needs to be *so* flexible as
>> all that).
>
> Thanks, but it looks like you made some editing mistake, which deleted
> too much of the text, so the commit was reverted.  Please take a look
> and fix as needed; I tried to figure out what you wanted to do, but
> couldn't, presumably because too much of the text was inadvertently
> lost when you installed the changes.

I did delete quite a large chunk of text by accident, I've rewritten it
and committed again. Sorry this has been so rocky.

Eric

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Michael Heerdegen via Emacs development discussions.]

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?


TIA,

Michael.

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Michael Heerdegen via "Emacs development discussions."
<emacs-devel@gnu.org> 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.

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
> Cc: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,
>     Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:33:38 -0700
> 
> Mattias Engdegård <mattias.engdegard@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Thanks, but it looks like you made some editing mistake, which deleted
> > too much of the text, so the commit was reverted.  Please take a look
> > and fix as needed; I tried to figure out what you wanted to do, but
> > couldn't, presumably because too much of the text was inadvertently
> > lost when you installed the changes.
> 
> I did delete quite a large chunk of text by accident, I've rewritten it
> and committed again. Sorry this has been so rocky.

Thanks, LGTM.

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Michael Heerdegen via "Emacs development discussions."
> <emacs-devel@gnu.org> 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

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Michael Heerdegen via Emacs development discussions.]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> I've fixed this -- I ended up using "anonymous function" instead,
> mostly because the sentence was a bit confusing with just "function".

Thanks.

[ "Function" would have been fine with me, since it would be really
surprising if the code would name this ad-hoc constructed function that
is useful only once.  And it doesn't matter.  What matters a bit maybe
is the signature of this function - although one can guess it. ]

Michael.

Re: master 930c578c104: ; Improvements to PEG documentation

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Michael Heerdegen via "Emacs development discussions."
<emacs-devel@gnu.org> writes:

> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>> I've fixed this -- I ended up using "anonymous function" instead,
>> mostly because the sentence was a bit confusing with just "function".
>
> Thanks.
>
> [ "Function" would have been fine with me, since it would be really
> surprising if the code would name this ad-hoc constructed function that
> is useful only once.  And it doesn't matter.  What matters a bit maybe
> is the signature of this function - although one can guess it. ]

It was more the language of the documentation: two "functions" in close
proximity that referred to different functions; I found it a bit
ambiguous, and awkward.