Re: Trace debugger for lpeg
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Trace debugger for lpeg
- From: Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@...>
- Date: 2012年5月29日 12:22:48 +0200
On 21/10/2009 13:00, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
Hi List,
I thought I would share a debugger I created for tracing the path lpeg
takes in matching a pattern using a large/complex grammar. I've gone
through a lot of headache debugging a parser I made for Lua so I
thought I would share this bit of code which made it much easier.
The code changes the grammar like so:
(1) Changes each rule in the grammar to have a prefix pattern that is
always true and run time captures to print "ENTER<rule>"
(2) Changes each rule in the grammar to have a suffix pattern that is
composed of a pattern always true that run time captures to print
"LEAVE<rule>". The end of the suffix pattern is always false so it
does not change the actual pattern when it fails.
(3) If the rule in the grammar matches, (2) does not happen and
instead the current position and subject up to the position is
printed.
For my Lua parser, it looks something like this:
ENTER 1
ENTER space
ENTER comment
LEAVE comment
--- space ---
2
ENTER chunk
ENTER space
ENTER comment
LEAVE comment
--- space ---
2
ENTER stat
ENTER varlist
ENTER var
ENTER prefix
ENTER Name
The actual code to make this happen is quite simple:
for k, p in pairs(grammar) do
local enter = lpeg.Cmt(lpeg.P(true), function(s, p, ...)
print("ENTER", k) return p end);
local leave = lpeg.Cmt(lpeg.P(true), function(s, p, ...)
print("LEAVE", k) return p end) * (lpeg.P("k") - lpeg.P "k");
grammar[k] = lpeg.Cmt(enter * p + leave, function(s, p, ...)
print("---", k, "---") print(p, s:sub(1, p-1)) return p end)
end
(Notice that there is a trick in leave, we can't use lpeg.P(false)
because LPeg optimizes it out.)
Hope someone out there finds it useful!
I do!
The idea is smart and once I understood how it worked, I found the implementation brilliant.
For some reasons, I had trouble making it to work with the latest version of LPeg
(0.10.2), but perhaps it was just my failure. Anyway, I slightly adapted the code to use
the latest features of LPeg, and to fit my taste in formatting the result.
Here is my version:
for k, r in pairs(grammar) do
if type(k) == "number" then
if type(r) ~= "pattern" and type(r) ~= "userdata" then
print("Initial rule: " .. r)
end
else
local enter = lpeg.P(function (s, p, ...) print("ENTER", k) return true end)
local leave = lpeg.P(function (s, p, ...) print("LEAVE", k) return false end)
grammar[k] = lpeg.Cmt(enter * r + leave,
function (s, p, ...)
print("MATCH", k, p, "'" .. s:sub(1, p-1) .. "'")
return true
end)
end
end
It choked on the initial rule, so I made a (clumsy) detection to skip it.
Thanks for sharing.
--
Philippe Lhoste
-- (near) Paris -- France
-- http://Phi.Lho.free.fr
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --