Re: GSOC PEG project

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi,

Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> On Sun 11 Jul 2010 09:48, Michael Lucy <MichaelGLucy@Gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Humm, another thing to think about: (ice-9 regex) returns "match
>>> structures", which are really just vectors; have a look at them, and if
>>> it makes sense to mimic that interface, re-exporting those accessors
>>> somehow, please do.
>>
>> So, three potential paths from here:
>> 1. Mimic the match structure interface as much as possible.
>> 2. Have a similar but differently-named "peg-match structure"
>> interface that behaves mostly the same but has a few different
>> functions (I think naming them something slightly different would lead
>> to fewer people assuming they worked exactly the same as match
>> structures).
>> 3. Just having a different interface.
>>
>> I'm leaning toward (2); what do other people think?  I'd probably:
>> 1. Not have a peg-match:count function at all.
>> 2. Not have the functions take submatch numbers.
>> 3. Have peg-match:substring return the actual substring.
>> 4. Have another function peg-match:parse-tree that returns the parse
>> tree.
>
> Yes, if the needs are different, there's no sense in trying to horn the
> present into the past's shoe. Take the good conventions from (ice-9
> match), but there is no strict need for compatibility.

This should read (ice-9 regex), I think.

Ludo’.