Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] semantic action for mismatches?
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-09 21:49:15
On 1/10/2011 10:03 AM, caustik wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Eric Niebler<eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2011 7:09 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2011 12:36 AM, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2011 6:54 PM, caustik wrote:
>>>>> I've come to notice that there seems to be a missing bit of
>>>>> symmetry in spirit with regards to semantic actions.
>>>>> If a rule matches, and thus executes it's semantic action(s), but
>>>>> a rule which includes that rule mismatches, there seems to be no
>>>>> way to "unwind" the code executed down the chain. For example, if
>>>>> one of your semantic actions allocates memory or increments a
>>>>> reference count, how do you free / release that reference in the
>>>>> mismatch scenario? I've thought about using something like a
>>>>> shared_ptr, but it seems like that gets pretty sloppy and
>>>>> unnatural. Is there something you can think of that would work?
>>>> Just for reference, xpressive doesn't have this problem because
>>>> actions are executed lazily. When a sub-pattern matches, its action
>>>> is placed on a queue. If the pattern matching engine then needs to
>>>> backtrack, the action is un-queued. Only when the *whole* pattern
>>>> matches successfully is the entire action sequence executed ... in
>>>> order, of course.
>>> We've considered that approach before, but what do you really mean
>>> by sub-pattern?
>> Anything that isn't the outermost pattern-match.
>>> AFAICT, lazily evaluating actions can only be done
>>> at the topmost (start) node since a sub-parser cannot really know
>>> that it will be rolled back.
>>> Alas, that approach does not work well
>>> with fully typed attributed grammars and type-erased rules.
>> I don't know about the "fully typed attributed" part, but type-erasure
>> has nothing to do with it. Xpressive regexes are also type-erased. Only
>> regex algorithms begin the pattern match. That entry point is what sets
>> up the action context, and only the end state of the outermost regex
>> causes the chain of actions to execute. Trust me, it works.
> So is it possible for "sub-patterns" to be typed (like synthesized
> attributes in Spirit), and if so, how?
AFAIK, no. xpressive does not have attributes.
> I'm also curious what the difference performance characteristics are (Spirit
> / Xpressive).
I'm not quite keen on apples-oranges comparisons. Both xpressive and
Spirit have their place. That said, I am not aware of any formal benchmarks,
but there's an informal one posted by Overmind on the Boost users list:
With that simple test, Spirit beats highly optimized xpressive
(1.5 secs vs. 9 secs). You might want to read the whole thread.
Of course, your millage may vary.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk