From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GSOC PEG project Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:21:51 +0200 Message-ID: References: <874ogdmu2m.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1279369158 13959 80.91.229.12 (17 Jul 2010 12:19:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 12:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Lucy Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 17 14:19:15 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oa6MN-0000pA-5I for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:19:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37327 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oa6MM-0003kz-EA for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:19:14 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60805 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oa6MD-0003kr-Vu for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:19:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oa6MC-0003TZ-R0 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:19:05 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:37215 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oa6MC-0003TV-NM; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CC2C59BE; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:19:04 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=RmzahhAuIYE1/X7R288bQ/JnjCE=; b=UpH7WV f50tfj8j6QYgQ2MbzTYstbK3i60wJgZiBvTsamLSBMff627IDVT2Gan329Ai5jmL tgT2CoxQvrjo5T6dswJ4V0LpNvwCaa3dY8oyFXgRqJ8tMtBr2txPNHODwKlBjpJi 2KUaVb4l6x5jPTu28eoNkl95/DqV9GIelJlLc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=oqir6aE2w61mBI/U/pbIo8NTK9YAlBOv zeF5VvyNLAW9WcHygmbCdLvTGvvn9GdwkNpenhpg7V9Mox0PRBqIA4y1wp6CV2hI dYuMNSUuLDjjRzs2/H5JwYA2hBCLpdIHHIqypaij2TV/kRYSx5jIJq+TAtE2T1sT gp1aq4Klmh8= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DDFC59BD; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [81.38.186.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9394CC59B8; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:18:59 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Michael Lucy's message of "Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:48:39 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7C3A9A8A-919D-11DF-B51C-9056EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10680 Archived-At: On Sun 11 Jul 2010 09:48, Michael Lucy writes: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andy Wingo 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/