Re: [Caml-list] cmdliner difficulties

[Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com>]

Just in case, Menhir has "demos", small examples of lexer+parser pairs
and an environment setup (example caller code, build script...). The
simplest demo is "calc"

  https://gitlab.inria.fr/fpottier/menhir/tree/master/demos/calc

a syntax for arithmetic expressions such as "(1 + 3) * 5 + 2".

It should be fairly easy to get a syntax for set operators by
replacing "*" with "Intersection" and "+" with "Union" in the Lexer,
and integer literals by feature names.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 2:27 AM Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How about "lexing" them into a list of operation tokens, then using the shunting-yard algorithm to parse them into an expression tree? that would allow arbitrary recursive expressions and still be relatively straightforward to process.
>
> martin
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller <kennethadammiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I understand other people have written those things before, and that it's probably not so challenging to someone else, and I'm not saying I can't or wouldn't write it, but I'm under deadline pressure, and I think it would not be looked up on well if I had something with anywhere near so many features or as much work to deliver since if they even exist. Since I have to demonstrate this, the first question they are going to ask is "you spent more than X minutes working on this when you could have been working on the minimum viable product!! Unhappy!!" So I'm not disregarding the input I've got, but I think that I can achieve a less robust working version with the same set of features in a simpler fashion.
>>
>> So, instead I think can get something very near to a full grammar, while still allowing the fundamental operations I want. Here's what I've got:
>>
>>
>> type setop =
>>   | Intersection
>>   | Difference
>>   | Union
>> [@@deriving sexp]
>>
>> let list_setops = [
>>     "Intersection", Intersection;
>>     "Difference", Difference;
>>     "Union", Union;
>> ]
>> let setops_doc = List.(to_string ~f:fst (list_setops))
>> let setops =
>>   let doc = "." in
>>   Cmdliner.Arg.(
>>     value & opt_all (some (pair ~sep:'=' string & pair (enum (list_setops)) & pair string string)) []
>>     & info ["setop"] ~docv:setops_doc ~doc
>>   )
>>
>>
>> Instead of having an recursive variant instance in the type setop place to allow the grammar to be recursive, I will fold over the setops, and add each one to a map. For example, I might have:
>>
>> --setop Red=Union (Feature1, Feature2) --setop Green=Intersection (Red, Feature3)
>>
>> So that, as I fold, I will add colors to the feature set. Then, for whatever nested operations otherwise would have been required, I can just manually unfold them on the command line.
>>
>> I guess I've solved my problem, but I was hoping to get a recursive parsing capability on the command line that would have supporting a type declaration more like the following:
>>
>> type setop =
>>   | Result of setop
>>   | Intersection of string * string
>>   | Difference of string * string
>>   | Union of string * string
>>
>> The problem with this is, 1) the constructors are non-uniform so that there isn't a clean way to specify to the Cmdliner.Arg.value function what the converter should be 2) The list type of their resulting pairwise sub-command specifications to the command line (the "enum list_setops" part) becomes much harder to specify since those also need to be constructible in the string - type pairs for the list_setops argument to enum.
>>
>> I suppose my thinking about how to deal with this would be to write a custom conv to convert the command line input, but to do so it would have to be recursive, and the Cmdliner.Arg.enum would have to support both non-uniform constructors and an argument conv to be able to do this correctly.
>>
>> Does anybody have a better way to capture what I'm looking to do?
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:54 AM Андрей Бергман <vkni@yandex.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>> Probably a parser combinator with a small language would be a better tool for that. Parser generators look too heavy, and comman-line parsers are too light (otherwise they become optparse-applicative, which is too specific to study it => everyone uses cookbook).
>
>