lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Hi Sean,

It seems everything lpeg.Cf can do can be done with lpeg.Cmt.

Under what circumstances would using lpeg.Cmt INSTEAD of lpeg.Cf be considered a severe design failure ?

I tried using lpeg.Cf recursively and its quite convoluted.

For parsing thing like this:


Its quite a bit easier with Cmt since I can create an empty table ( state ) at the start of the loop. with Cf you are not sure if you at the start,middle or end of the loop.

I had a look at the moon-script code base ( written using LPEG ) and there seems no usage of lpeg.Cf.

What I am trying to find is the minimum number of functions that is needed for LPEG.

Up until now I haven't found a function that cannot be used uniquely in a given situation, so I am quite curious to be proven wrong.

best wishes,


On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:16 AM Soni "They/Them" L. <> wrote:

On 2019-04-03 9:50 p.m., Sean Conner wrote:

>    I've also used it to fail a pattern that would otherwise match.  It is
> possible to come up with a pattern that matches the numbers between 0 and
> 255 but it's quite involved and part of it looks like:
>       dec_octet = P"25" * R"05"
>                 + P"2" * P"04" * P"09"
>                 + P"1" * ...
> I found it easier to use Cmt() instead:
>       local dec_octet = Cmt(DIGIT^1,function(_,position,capture)
>         local n = tonumber(capture)
>         if n < 256 then
>           return position
>         end
>       end)
> When the string of digits is greater than 255, this returns nil, which
> causes the match to fail.  Doing this:
>       dec_octet = DIGIT^1
>                    / function(c)
>                        local n = tonumber(c)
>                        if n < 256 then
>                          return c
>                        end
>                      end
> won't cause the match to fail---instead it will return nil as the captured
> data.

Unrelated, but, those aren't strictly equivalent:

tonumber("000001") --> 1
1 < 256, but "000001" doesn't follow the
(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9]) pattern.

This may or may not be a problem depending on your use-case. (e.g. \000
escapes in Lua take 3 digits and fail on >255, but some hypothetical
language could take up to 3 digits less than 255 such that e.g. \999
would be \99 followed by an literal 9)

>    -spc