Re: GSOC PEG project

[Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>]

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.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/