When defining a syntax, it is possible to match 1 or more times (+) or 0 or more times (*) similarly to how it is done in regex. However, I have not found in the rascal documentation if it is possible to also match a Symbol a specific amount of times. In regex (and Rascal patterns) this is done with an integer between two curly brackets but this doesn't seem to work for syntax definition. Ideally, I'd want something like:
lexical Line = [0-9.]+;
syntax Sym = sym: {Line Newline}{5};
Which would only try to match the first 5 lines of the text below:
..0..
11.11
44.44
1.11.1
33333
55555
No this meta syntax does not exist in Rascal. We did not add it.
You could write an over-estimation like this and have a post-parse filter reject more than 5 items:
syntax Sym = fiveLines: (Line NewLine)+ lines
visit (myParseTree) {
case (Sym) `<(Line NewLine)+ lines>` :
throw ParseError(x.src) when length(lines) != 5;
}
Or unfold the loop like so:
syntax Sym
= Line NewLine
Line NewLine
Line NewLine
Line NewLine
Line NewLine
;
Repetition with an integer parameter sounds like a good feature request for us the consider, if you need it badly. We only have to consider what it means for Rascal's type-system; for the parser generator its a simple rule to add.
For my parser, for the purpose of this question, any line starting with a single lowercase letter among a set of lowercase letters, followed by the character '=' followed by any other character is a valid line. So, the following are valid lines (all starting from first column):
a=20
b=50 70
q=20 Hello There
z=-
Any other line is not valid. My need is to match the complement. How do I write a flex expression to match the invalid lines. My confusion arises from the ^ which means start of line as well as complement the expression.
I thought ^[abq][=].+ would match the acceptable line so merely complementing it with ^ will do. But ^ at the start of the expression always implies match at start of the line. I made a few other attempts but that did not work too. Though not relevant, the expression is used as the first step to discard invalid SDP lines. See here for details from the relevant SDP RFC, if it matters.
The simplest approach is to always match entire lines (or use different start conditions to lexically analyse the rest of valid lines). Although flex does not have a negation operator (the [^…] negative character class is not an operator), in this case the expressions are pretty simple and can be expressed easily enough. Note that it doesn't matter that the various "invalid line" patterns are not disjoint, since it doesn't matter which one matches a particular invalid line. So here are three patterns which I believe collectively match all invalid lines
[^abqz\n].* { /* Starts with the wrong letter */ }
.[^=\n] { /* Second character not = */ }
.$ { /* Only one character in line */ }
Groovy supports / as a division operator:
groovy> 1 / 2
===> 0.5
It supports / as a string delimiter, which can even be multiline:
groovy> x = /foo/
===> foo
groovy:000> x = /foo
groovy:001> bar/
===> foo
bar
Given this, why can't I evaluate a slashy-string literal in groovysh?
groovy:000> /foo/
groovy:001>
clearly groovysh thinks this is unterminated for some reason.
How does groovy avoid getting confused between division and strings? What does this code mean:
groovy> f / 2
Is this a function call f(/2 .../) where / is beginning a multiline slashy-string, or f divided by 2?
How does Groovy distinguish division from strings?
I'm not entirely sure how Groovy does it, but I'll describe how I'd do it, and I'd be very surprised if Groovy didn't work in a similar way.
Most parsing algorithms I've heard of (Shunting-yard, Pratt, etc) recognize two distinct kinds of tokens:
Those that expect to be preceded by an expression (infix operators, postfix operators, closing parentheses, etc). If one of these is not preceded by an expression, it's a syntax error.
Those that do not expect to be preceded by an expression (prefix operators, opening parentheses, identifiers, literals, etc). If one of these is preceded by an expression, it's a syntax error.
To make things easier, from this point onward I'm going to refer to the former kind of token as an operator and the latter as a non-operator.
Now, the interesting thing about this distinction is that it's made not based on what the token actually is, but rather on the immediate context, particularly the preceding tokens. Because of this, the same token can be interpreted very differently depending on its position in the code, and whether the parser classifies it as an operator or a non-operator. For example, the '-' token, if in an operator position, denotes a subtraction, but the same token in a non-operator position is a negation. There is no issue deciding whether a '-' is a subtraction operator or not, because you can tell based on its context.
The same is, in general, true for the '/' character in Groovy. If preceded by an expression, it's interpreted as an operator, which means it's a division. Otherwise, it's a non-operator, which makes it a string literal. So, you can generally tell if a '/' is a division or not, by looking at the token that immediately precedes it:
The '/' is a division if it follows an identifier, literal, postfix operator, closing parenthesis, or other token that denotes the end of an expression.
The '/' begins a string if it follows a prefix operator, infix operator, opening parenthesis, or other such token, or if it begins a line.
Of course, it isn't quite so simple in practice. Groovy is designed to be flexible in the face of various styles and uses, and therefore things like semicolons or parentheses are often optional. This can make parsing somewhat ambiguous at times. For example, say our parser comes across the following line:
println / foo
This is most likely an attempt to print a multiline string: foo is the beginning of a string being passed to println as an argument, and the optional parentheses around the argument list are left out. Of course, to a simple parser it looks like a division. I expect the Groovy parser can tell the difference by reading ahead to the following lines to see which interpretation does not give an error, but for something like groovysh that is literally impossible (since, as a repl, it doesn't yet have access to more lines), so it's forced to just guess.
Why can't I evaluate a slashy-string literal in groovysh?
As before, I don't know the exact reason, but I do know that because groovysh is a repl, it's bound to have more trouble with the more ambiguous rules. Even so, a simple single-line slashy-string is pretty unambiguous, so I believe something else may be going on here. Here is the result of me playing with various forms in groovysh:
> /foo - unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1.
> /foo/ - awaits further input
> /foo/bar - unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1.
> /foo/bar/ - awaits further input
> /foo/ + 'bar' - unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1.
> 'foo' + /bar/ - evaluates to 'foobar'
> /foo/ - evaluates to 'foo'
> /foo - awaits further input
> /foo/bar - Unknown property: bar
It appears that something strange happens when a '/' character is the first character in a line. The pattern it appears to follow (as far as I can tell) is this:
A slash as the first character of a line begins a strange parsing mode.
In this mode, every line that ends with a slash followed by nothing but whitespace causes the repl to await further lines.
On the first line that ends with something other than a slash (or whitespace following a slash), the error unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1. is printed.
I've also noticed a couple of interesting points regarding this:
Both forward slashes (/) and backslashes (\) appear to count, and seem to be completely interchangeable, in this special mode.
This does not appear to happen at all in groovyConsole or in actual Groovy files.
Putting any whitespace before the opening slash character causes groovysh to interpret it correctly, but only if the opening slash is a forward slash, not a backslash.
So, I personally expect that this is just a quirk of groovysh, either a bug or some under-documented feature I haven't heard about.
I have been coding a program in Lua that automatically formats IRC logs from a roleplay. In the roleplay logs there is a specific guideline for "Out of character" conversation, which we use double parentheses for. For example: ((<Things unrelated to roleplay go here>)). I have been trying to have my program remove text between double brackets (and including both brackets). The code is:
ofile = io.open("Output.txt", "w")
rfile = io.open("Input.txt", "r")
p = rfile:read("*all")
w = string.gsub(p, "%(%(.*?%)%)", "")
ofile:write(w)
The pattern here is > "%(%(.*?%)%)" I've tried multiple variations of the pattern. All resulted in fruitless results:
1. %(%(.*?%)%) --Wouldn't do anything.
2. %(%(.*%)%) --Would remove *everything* after the first OOC message.
Then, my friend told me that prepending the brackets with percentages wouldn't work, and that I had to use backslashes to 'escape' the parentheses.
3. \(\(.*\)\) --resulted in the output file being completely empty.
4. (\(\(.*\)\)) --Same result as above.
5. (\(\(.*?\)\) --would for some reason, remove large parts of the text for no apparent reason.
6. \(\(.*?\)\) --would just remove all the text except for the last line.
The short, absolute question:
What pattern would I need to use to remove all text between double parentheses, and remove the double parentheses themselves too?
You're friend is thinking of regular expressions. Lua patterns are similar, but different. % is the correct escape character.
Your pattern should be %(%(.-%)%). The - is similar to * in that it matches any number of the preceding sequence, but while * tries to match as many characters as it can (it's greedy), - matches the least amount of characters possible (it's non-greedy). It won't go overboard and match extra double-close-parenthesis.
I'am new to Maxima and would like to use it for Denavit-Hartenberg matrices (consists of a lot of cos and sin terms). The problem is, that maxima does not simplify the following expression:
ex: x*cos(pi);
I expect, that Maxima simplifies ex to -x. How can this been done? (ratsimp(ex) and trigsimp(ex) have no effects)
In Maxima's dialect, the correct name of the constant is %pi. With it, it should simplify correctly.
As others have said, %pi is the correct name of the constant in Maxima. pi is simply rendered as π in GUIs like wxMaxima because all Greek letters are (you can have a variable named "π", which has nothing to do with the value of the constant π=3.14159...).
By the way, other predefined constants are written with the % character as well, such as for example
%e (=exp(1))
%i (=sqrt(-1))
%phi (the golden section)
The manual's index lists all % candidates.
Note that other useful constants that can not be expressed by digits, such as inf or false do not have the percent character.