This makes extractList identical to the same function in other grammars
and makes it so that nulls are dealt with in only one function (until
now, they were dealt with both in extractList and buildList).
The refactoring should be safe as extractList isn't by itself used in
contexts where it can be passed a list containing nulls.
In the past year I worked on various grammars where first/rest or
head/tail were used as labels for parts of lists. I found I associate
head/tail with a list immediately, while in case of first/rest I have to
"parse" grammar rules for a while before understanding their structure.
Moreover, I tend to assume that rest is a list of the same thigs as
first, but I don't have such assumption in case of head/tail. This
assumption was in conflict with the grammar structure.
I'm not sure how much these observations are applicable to others, but I
decided to act on them and switch from first/rest to head/tail.
This is a complete rewrite of the CSS example grammar. It is now based
on CSS 2.1 *including the errata* and the generated parser builds a
nicer syntax tree. There is also a number of cleanups, formatting
changes, naming changes, and bug fixes.
Beside this, the rewrite reflects how I write grammars today (as opposed
to few years ago) and what style I would recommend to others.
It's not necessary to parse |parts| in the |integer| and |float| rule
into integer/float value. Everywhere these rules are used the result is
converted back into string anyway.
Before this commit, the |?| operator returned an empty string upon
unsuccessful match. This commit changes the returned value to |null|. It
also updates the PEG.js grammar and the example grammars, which used the
value returned by |?| quite often.
Returning |null| is possible because it no longer indicates a match
failure.
I expect that this change will simplify many real-world grammars, as an
empty string is almost never desirable as a return value (except some
lexer-level rules) and it is often translated into |null| or some other
value in action code.
Implements part of #198.
Labeled expressions lead to more maintainable code and also will allow
certain optimizations (we can ignore results of expressions not passed
to the actions).
This does not speed up the benchmark suite execution statistically
significantly on V8.
Detailed results (benchmark suite totals):
---------------------------------
Test # Before After
---------------------------------
1 28.43 kB/s 28.46 kB/s
2 28.38 kB/s 28.56 kB/s
3 28.22 kB/s 28.58 kB/s
4 28.76 kB/s 28.55 kB/s
5 28.57 kB/s 28.48 kB/s
---------------------------------
Average 28.47 kB/s 28.53 kB/s
---------------------------------
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) AppleWebKit/533.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/5.0.375.55 Safari/533.4
I'll introduce labelled expressions shortly and I want to use ":" as a
label-expression separator. This change avoids conflict between the two
meanings of ":". (What would e.g. "foo: 'bar'" mean? Rule "foo"
matching string "bar", or string "bar" labelled "foo"?)
David Majda
David Majda