Overhaul of Set#members needed

[jaynetics]

Right now, handling the content of character sets with regexp_parser is hard:

• The Scanner only detects few ranges successfully, as detailed in issue #29.
• The Scanner returns inconclusive information about member tokens because they all have the type :set. Issue #28 describes this for properties, but it also affects \a, \e, \n, \t, \u, \v and more.
• The Parser then "throws away" even this limited information as it only relays the Token#text to Set#members. (Re-running Parser#parse on individual Set#members is a poor workaround for this.)

What I have in mind as a general solution is the following:

• removing the :subset token type, leaving #set_level to differentiate between sets and subsets
• using the :set token type only for tokens that are particular to sets ([, ^, &&, ] and ranges)
• removing the :member, :member_hex, :range and :range_hex tokens
• treating set ranges and members like any other sub-expression instead
• removing the attr Set#members, leaving #expressions to access members, ranges and subsets

Thus, parsing /a[bc-d]/ could yield something like

#<Root @expressions=[
  #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="a" >,
  #<CharacterSet @expressions=[
    #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="b" >,
    #<Range @type=:set, @token=:range, @expressions=[
      #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="c" >,
      #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="d" >
    ]>
  ]>
]>

The only tricky bit is rewiring the ragel machines in the right way and catching all ranges. On the other hand, it would probably lead to less code, as special treatment is only needed for a few things within sets: the set tokens plus ., \b, and [:...:] if I am not mistaken.

What do you think, @ammar?

[ammar]

Thanks for this @janosch-x.

Characters sets are the poorest implemented part of the scanner. Barely satisfied the most basic of cases.

I like the approach you outlined. Removing :subset and treating :set members as sub-expressions is a great idea. It should simplify the scanner and its use.

I wonder if extracting the character set scanning logic into a sub-machine, like properties.rl, would make it easier to implement the changes. it might require breaking scanner.rl into smaller parts, which could be a good thing. I'd like to explore that a little, soon hopefully.

[jaynetics]

I wonder if extracting the character set scanning logic into a sub-machine, like properties.rl, would make it easier to implement the changes.

Thats what I thought, too. I might be able to help a bit with the whole thing, at least by setting up tests beforehand.

Another thing that just crossed my mind is that it could make sense to have an Intersection expression with subexpressions as well. Right now, you have to keep track of the preceding and succeeding set member yourself to find out what is being intersected. We could do something like this instead:

Regexp::Parser.parse(/[a-c&&b]/) # =>
#<Root @expressions=[
  #<CharacterSet @expressions=[
    #<Intersection @type=:set, @token=:intersection, @expressions=[
      #<Range @type=:set, @token=:range, @expressions=[
        #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="a" >,
        #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="c" >
      ]>,
      #<Literal @type=:literal, @token=:literal, @text="b" >
    ]>
  ]>
]>

The least complicated way to achieve this might be doing it purely in parser.rb, kind of the same way alternation expressions are handled.

[jaynetics]

resolved by #55