16 Mar
2009
16 Mar
'09
9:44 a.m.
Hello,
I'm trying to enhance the Matlab bundle. Especially by trying to make
matlab and texmate to interact (shortcut to launch a script etc...).
And I must say I'm pretty bad with shell scripts and regular
expressions.
I've nevertheless managed to do that, and now I'm trying to recreate
matlab "cell mode" : matlab source files are scripts, and it is
possible to divide the script in "cells". When you are in the (awful)
matlab editor, you can run the current cell just with cmd+enter. This
is very useful. The problem is that the cell separator is just a line
like this :
%% Title of the new cell
...That's it, there is no ending marker for a cell : the current cell
ends where the new one starts ! What I've done now is creating a new
"cell" scope delimited by these lines, but as soon as one "%% ...."
line is used to mark the end of a scope, it can't be used to start the
following one.
Here's my descriptor.
contentName = 'meta.cell.matlab';
begin = '%%.*$\n';
end = '%%.*$\n';
captures = { 0 = { name = 'meta.celltitle.matlab'; }; };
patterns = (
# Here I include all the other scope descriptors, because they can
be contained in a cell !
)
For my solution to work, I then have to use two of these "%% ..."
lines, one to end the previous cell scope, and one to start the new
one. This means matlab files need to be modified to work, which is not
so good !
Do you have an idea on how to solve this problem ?
A linked problem (but less important) is that I can't get code folding
to work with cells : a start marker can't be the same as an end marker.
Thank you !
16 Mar
16 Mar
10:01 a.m.
Le 16 mars 09 à 10:44, Pierre Morel a écrit :
Hello,
I'm trying to enhance the Matlab bundle. Especially by trying to make
matlab and texmate to interact (shortcut to launch a script etc...).
And I must say I'm pretty bad with shell scripts and regular
expressions.
I've nevertheless managed to do that, and now I'm trying to recreate
matlab "cell mode" : matlab source files are scripts, and it is
possible to divide the script in "cells". When you are in the (awful)
matlab editor, you can run the current cell just with cmd+enter. This
is very useful. The problem is that the cell separator is just a line
like this :
%% Title of the new cell
...That's it, there is no ending marker for a cell : the current cell
ends where the new one starts ! What I've done now is creating a new
"cell" scope delimited by these lines, but as soon as one "%% ...."
line is used to mark the end of a scope, it can't be used to start the
following one.
Here's my descriptor.
contentName = 'meta.cell.matlab';
begin = '%%.*$\n';
end = '%%.*$\n';
captures = { 0 = { name = 'meta.celltitle.matlab'; }; };
patterns = (
# Here I include all the other scope descriptors, because they can
be contained in a cell !
)
For my solution to work, I then have to use two of these "%% ..."
lines, one to end the previous cell scope, and one to start the new
one. This means matlab files need to be modified to work, which is not
so good !
Do you have an idea on how to solve this problem ?
A linked problem (but less important) is that I can't get code folding
to work with cells : a start marker can't be the same as an end
marker.
Thank you !
What about look-behind? The expression (?=%%) check that the next two
characters indeed are %%, but don’t consume then. Look-ahead, which
check the previous characters, is written (?<=subexp) and both come
with negative versions — check that the character are *not* something.
More information in the manual:
http://manual.macromates.com/en/regular_expressions
Watch out for grammar bugs, however. It’s easy to make TM crash if
you write things like:
begin = '(?=a)'
end = '(?=b)'
because neither expression consume a character. Thus the expression
ab matches the rule, no character is consumed and the string is left
similar. And still matches the rule, so TM loop.
Édouard GILBERT
edouard.gilbert(a)gmail.com
19 Mar
19 Mar
6 p.m.
On 16 Mar 2009, at 11:01, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
[...]
Watch out for grammar bugs, however. It’s easy to make TM crash if
you write things like:
begin = '(?=a)'
end = '(?=b)'
because neither expression consume a character. [...]
For the records, you’d need to make it:
begin = '(?=a)'
end = '(?=a)'
Here, if the ‘patterns’ active between begin/end do not consume
anything, we have the infinite loop. In your example the parser would
have advanced to “just before b”, so the same rule would not be
applicable at the same position.
7:10 p.m.
Le 19 mars 09 à 19:00, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
On 16 Mar 2009, at 11:01, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
Actually, I ran into the problem with both look-ahead and look behind,
as in
begin = '(?<=a)'
end = '(?=b)'
so I didn’t thought of that. It might help with some trouble I have on
a grammar. Cheers.
While we’re discussing language grammars, I was wondering if we could
hope some lexer-like capabilities in TM2.0 — I to have regexes
everywhere in my grammars, they make anything barely readable.
And, on quite but not that much unrelated matters, what would be the
better way to match something like:
a
[...]
Watch out for grammar bugs, however. It’s easy to make TM crash if
you write things like:
begin = '(?=a)'
end = '(?=b)'
because neither expression consume a character. [...]
For the records, you’d need to make it:
begin = '(?=a)'
end = '(?=a)'
Here, if the ‘patterns’ active between begin/end do not consume
anything, we have the infinite loop. In your example the parser would
have advanced to “just before b”, so the same rule would not be
applicable at the same position. I can apply set of rule A
b
I can apply set of rule B
c
My current is
begin = 'a'
end = '(?<=c)'
patterns= (
{ begin = '(?<=a)'
end = 'b'
patterns = ( A )
begin = '(?<=b)'
end = 'c'
patterns = ( B )
}
but the restrictions on look-ahead bug me.
begin = '(?=a)'
end = 'c'
patterns= (
{ begin = 'a'
end = '(?=b)'
patterns = ( A )
begin = 'b'
end = '(?=c)'
patterns = ( B )
}
might be a better solution. Or is there a efficient and elegant
solution I didn't think of?
Édouard GILBERT
edouard.gilbert(a)gmail.com
8 Apr
8 Apr
7:59 p.m.
On 19 Mar 2009, at 20:10, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
[…]
While we’re discussing language grammars, I was wondering if we
could hope some lexer-like capabilities in TM2.0 — I to have regexes
everywhere in my grammars, they make anything barely readable.
The feature set is sort of closed for 2.0, but there should be 2.1
etc. so; what exactly do you mean/propose? I realize that idealized
EBNF looks nicer than a TM grammar, but in practice it is not (IMHO).
And, on quite but not that much unrelated matters,
what would be the
better way to match something like:
a
I am confused as to the size of your scopes.
Is each letter starting a new scope, so b is nested inside a, and c is
nested inside b (nested inside a)?
I can apply set of rule A
b
I can apply set of rule B
c
My current is […]
8:57 p.m.
Le 8 avr. 09 à 21:59, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
On 19 Mar 2009, at 20:10, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
Édouard GILBERT
edouard.gilbert(a)gmail.com
[…]
While we’re discussing language grammars, I was wondering if we
could hope some lexer-like capabilities in TM2.0 — I to have regexes
everywhere in my grammars, they make anything barely readable.
The feature set is sort of closed for 2.0, but there should be 2.1
etc. so; what exactly do you mean/propose? I realize that idealized
EBNF looks nicer than a TM grammar, but in practice it is not (IMHO).
And, on quite but not that much unrelated
matters, what would be the
better way to match something like:
a
I am confused as to the size of your scopes.
Is each letter starting a new scope, so b is nested inside a, and c is
nested inside b (nested inside a)?
_______________________________________________
textmate mailing list
textmate(a)lists.macromates.com
http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate I can apply set of rule A
b
I can apply set of rule B
c
My current is […]
9:11 p.m.
Sorry about last mail, I clicked “send” instead of “minimize”.
Le 8 avr. 09 à 21:59, Allan Odgaard a écrit :
</a>
is of course meaningless.
A third scope, which opens with <a and closes with </a> might also be
useful.
Édouard GILBERT
edouard.gilbert(a)gmail.com
On 19 Mar 2009, at 20:10, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
Actually, ‘a’ opens a scope A, ‘b’ both closes A and opens another
scope B, which is then closed by ’c’.
Note that while I’m interested in scopes, I’m even more interested in
grammars development.
An actual example could help:
<a # opens a scope for autocompletion of attributes of tag a
[…]
While we’re discussing language grammars, I was wondering if we
could hope some lexer-like capabilities in TM2.0 — I to have regexes
everywhere in my grammars, they make anything barely readable.
The feature set is sort of closed for 2.0, but there should be 2.1
etc. so; what exactly do you mean/propose? I realize that idealized
EBNF looks nicer than a TM grammar, but in practice it is not (IMHO).
And, on quite but not that much unrelated
matters, what would be the
better way to match something like:
a
I am confused as to the size of your scopes.
Is each letter starting a new scope, so b is nested inside a, and c is
nested inside b (nested inside a)? I can apply set of rule A
b
I can apply set of rule B
c
My current is […] # closes the attributes scope and open a scope for
autocompletion
of every possible child of a
</a> # closes everything.
Writing directly
16 Apr
16 Apr
9:49 a.m.
On 8 Apr 2009, at 23:11, Édouard Gilbert wrote:
[...]
Actually, ‘a’ opens a scope A, ‘b’ both closes A and opens another
scope B, which is then closed by ’c’.
Note that while I’m interested in scopes, I’m even more interested
in grammars development.
An actual example could help:
<a # opens a scope for autocompletion of attributes of tag a
</a>
is of course meaningless.
A third scope, which opens with <a and closes with </a> might also
be useful.
There are several ways to tackle this, but no ideal way, i.e. they all
have pros/cons.
I’d probably approach it something like this:
begin = "(?=<(\w+))" # general tag
begin = "<a\b" # it was an <a …> tag
end = ">" # we leave when seeing >
include = #attr_rules
begin = "(?!</)(?<=>)" # we just left previous rule and is
inside the actual tag content
end = "(?=</)" # we leave when we see an end tag
include = $self
end = "</$1>" # leave the general tag
This is probably where you got a infinite loop, I made a negative look-
ahead assertion on the second inner rule, as it would otherwise fail
on data like: <a></b>.
I didn’t test this, and as said, this is just one approach to a
problem that does not have an obvious solution, Michael Sheets
probably can tell you a lot more about the pros/cons of the various
approaches.
# closes the attributes scope and open a scope
for autocompletion
of every possible child of a
</a> # closes everything.
Writing directly
4546
days inactive
4577
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Allan Odgaard -
Pierre Morel -
Édouard Gilbert