A few days ago, we landed string pattern matching in Carp. This was borne of a long-standing desire to wrap a regular expression library for the standard library. For a long time, we weren’t sure which library to use, until late in February I looked into what Lua and Python use. Python’s implementation is unsurprisingly large and fairly complex. In fact, the matching function is about as large as Lua’s entire engine.
So I opted for Lua, and, within a few days, had a working version with a clean API that we could merge into Carp proper. Let me tell you about it!
I love Lua
Before we get into the beauty that is Lua pattern matching, let me make a confession: I’ve never really programmed Lua. It is the scripting language in my editor of choice, and I’ve written a fair bit for my own configuration, but beyond that I’ve not really worked with it.
I do have an appreciation for it, though, and it comes purely from me dabbling in the implementation of programming languages: Lua is lightweight, has a small codebase, and is fairly simple to optimize. What’s not to like?
Its implementation of pattern matching is no exception. It’s hardly 500 lines of code long, and although it’s not a true regular expression engine, in many ways I would argue that it is superior.
I was able to read through the code, understand it, and adapt it to Carp in less than an evening. That alone should be testament to just how readable—and maintainable—the code is. If you have time and are intrigued I suggest you read through it.
I love remixing
All I had to do was remix the code1. But just how did I do it? I would like to answer that question in a backwards manner, and start by giving you the resulting API and the syntax we’re using for our patterns. Then I will briefly address why I constantly say “patterns” instead of “regular expressions”, and, lastly, give you a little bit of insight into where we are, and a quick overview of the nasty bits.
; finds the index of a regex inside another string find : (Fn [&Pattern &String] Int) ; returns the match groups in a match match : (Fn [&Pattern &String] (Array String)) ; returns the match groups of all matches global-match : (Fn [&Pattern &String] (Array (Array String))) ; substitutes a pattern n times. Passing -1 will result ; in substitution of every occurrence of the pattern. substitute : (Fn [&Pattern &String &String Int] String) ; will check whether there are any valid matches of ; the regex in the string matches? : (Fn [&Pattern &String] Bool) ; will return the matched string match-str : (Fn [&Pattern &String] String)
Let’s go through the functions one by one and see what they’re about.
find will find the index of a pattern within a string. On failure, it will return
-1. Any captures will be dropped.
match will return the match groups within the first match as a list. We can have at most 16 captures right now. This is an arbitrary restriction, but it is useful to reduce the possibility that a very complex pattern uses up too much CPU time.
global-match works very much like
match, but it returns the match groups of all the matches in the string. This means that you’ll get back a nested array, one per match.
substitute takes a pattern, a string in which to substitute the pattern, the string that the pattern should be substituted with, and the number of times we should substitute the pattern. If the number is
-1, we will substitute all occurrences of the pattern. It always works from the beginning of the string to the end, meaning that you can’t substitute just the second or third pattern at the moment.
matches? is a simple boolean function to check whether there are any matches of a pattern in a string. To check whether a string is a perfect match of a pattern, you could use the anchors
match-str will return the text of the match.
The pattern language is almost identical to Lua’s, which you can read about here. The most obvious difference is that we use
\ as our escape character, and we added
\n, which matches all kinds of newline characters, and
\t, which matches tabulation characters. We also added pattern literals, which allow us to avoid the dreaded double escaping you have to perform in certain string-based APIs.
Let’s try and break it down with an example. Imagine a Turtle and a Koala are running a university, and you are one of their students. Sadly they provide the curriculum in a format that reads a little clumsily, and you’ll want to use Carp and its patterns to clean them up. This is the format:
Professor Koala: A guide to eating eucalyptus (K 101) Professor Turtle: Flapping your flippers just right (T 101) Professor Turtle: Data science with Carp (T 201) Professor Koala: Learning languages quickly (K 201) [...]
Time to roll up our sleeves! We want to parse all of this into a struct named
Course that contains information about the professor, the name of the course, the name of the major, and the course number.
(deftype Course [professor String name String major String number Int]) (deftype Curriculum [courses (Array Course)])
Alright, we defined a type for our data. Let’s now get to parsing it!
(defn parse-line [line] ; for each line, we match our pattern (not ; yet defined) and put the groups into a ; Course struct (let [groups (match pat line) prof @(nth &groups 0) name @(nth &groups 1) major @(nth &groups 2) num (Int.from-string (nth &groups 3))] (Course.init prof name major num))) (defn parse [curriculum] ; we begin by splitting curriculum into lines (let [lines (String.lines curriculum) ; then we go over the lines, parsing ; each one. we'll end up with a list ; of courses courses (copy-map parse-line &lines)] ; now we wrap it into a curriculum, and we’re ; done! (Curriculum.init courses)))
This is a big chunk of a program, but it doesn’t do much except pulling the data out of one representation and pushing it into another, the one we desire. The crucial part is
(match pat line), which does most of that work. But we haven’t actually defined
pat yet! Let’s do that quickly!
(def pat #"([^:]+): ([^\(]+) \(([A-Z]+) (\d+)\)")
By Odin’s beard! What is that abomination? It’s a perfectly normal pattern, I assure you, and one that most regular old PCRE regex libraries understand to boot.
Let’s dissect it: firstly, let’s note that pattern literals in Carp use
#"" as syntax. This makes it easy to differentiate them from regular strings, which of course aren’t prefixed with a hash symbol.
The first section is a matching group already, as denoted by the parentheses. This will be the first thing in the array we get back from
match. It matches anything that isn’t a colon. We express this by using an inverted group, which uses
[^<members>] as syntax. Anything not in the group will be matched. We match this one or more times, which is what
+ stands for, and then close our group. At this point, we will have matched
Professor Koala in the first line.
Then we consume the colon and space
: and move on to the next group, which uses the same trick to match anything up until the parentheses begin—that’s why we tell it to match anything but an opening parenthesis (
[^\(]) one or more times (
+). Note that this means that the name of a course can never include a parenthesized section. We’re at
Professor Koala: A guide to eating eucalyptus now.
Both of these are premature optimizations. We could just as easily use
. to match anything instead of inverted groups, but that would probably slow us down quite a bit2.
Lastly, we match the parenthesized section. Because parentheses are reserved words in our pattern DSL we have to escape them (
Now we make another assumption: identifiers for majors will always be one or more uppercase letters. This leads us to the group
[A-Z]. If we wanted to match any letter character, we could use
\l instead, which even respects the user’s locale—the downside is that this would destroy the PCRE-compliance of our pattern. Anyway, now we’ve matched
Professor Koala: A guide to eating eucalyptus (K.
The very last thing we want to match is the course number, which we encode as one or more digits (
\d+). In our data-munging code in Figure 3 we then use
Int.from-string to read it into a number. All match groups are always strings, no matter whether or not they could clearly be something else. You’ll have to convert them yourself3.
And this brings us to the end of our program. If you want to test this out, be my guest! I’ve prepared a full listing of this code and an accompanying
main function. You can find it here4.
Patterns versus regular expressions
At this point you’re probably fed up with me calling those damn things patterns all the time. We all know that we’re talking about regular expressions!
Well, kind of. Except that the engine that Lua and, to that end, Carp implement is not a regular expression engine. The Lua team has been very adamant about this, and I plan to mimic that behaviour—it is their baby, after all!
So, what’s different? Most importantly, one of the main operators of regular expressions is completely missing: alternation. That’s right, no
|. This is very important, because that little thing is often where the fun begins in a regular expression engine, and its omission is one of the main reasons why Luas’s engine is so small. The engine also implements some non-standard operators such as
\l mentioned above, but alternation is definitely the big one.
I don’t want to sugar-coat it: the lack of alternation is definitely a drawback. I’m not entirely sure whether Carp will eventually replace patterns with a PCRE library, for exactly this reason. Which brings me to the next point: where we currently are.
Support for patterns was added in early March 2018, so as of the time of writing of this article, the API and its implementation are very much in their alpha.
I’d like to say that the happy path of patterns—i.e. correct patterns that actually run—is mostly stable. Erroneous patterns are less than ideal, but more about that below.
I’ve discovered a few errors while preparing my blog post and playing around with patterns and I assume you will, too. Such is life. I’m still working on them, though, and would appreciate any bug reports. My preferred medium for this is the Carp issue tracker, but if for one reason or another you’d prefer not to use it, notifying me through email or Gitter is fine, too. I will then file an issue myself.
One of the primary concerns I currently have is that Carp does not have a way to report errors to the user. This means that the modus operandi for erroring in patterns is printing to the standard output and returning
NULL, right now, which is the worst possible solution.
I am currently thinking about a pattern result type that has all the information that we need encoded in it, i.e. whether a pattern succeeded or failed, where the match occurred, and what the text of the match is. This would probably simplify a lot of the already simple code. Stay tuned!
A cool thing that also landed in Carp shortly after patterns is compile-time validation of pattern literals in the parser. I wrote that code one morning during a meeting and I’m less than sure that it will works in all cases, but so far it seems relatively stable.
We’re also not entirely clear on whether we will eventually need a PCRE-compliant regular expression engine. As the main standard library author and maintainer at the moment, I’d rather not deal with that. If you have helpful input on that front, I’d definitely like to hear it as well!
I’ve had a ton of fun working on my first fully-fledged pattern matching library. I’ve been surprised at how easy to implement the basic operations of regular expressions are when I wrote about it last year. I also wrote about a mostly forgotten pattern matching algorithm, and marveled at its clarity. This time was no exception.
I’ve not worked on pattern matching engines a ton, let alone full-blown PCRE engines. There are tons of fancy optimizations in that space that I’ve heard of but have never implemented myself. I assume it will be no different for a few of my readers—I know how well-read y’all are. I therefore also assume that a number of you are under the impression that those engines are large pieces held together by black magic and the occasional ingenious line of code.
But like with anything in Computer Science, this is untrue. I know it now because I worked on such an engine myself, and survived. It was a similar experience as when I designed my first programming language, or when I wrote my first editor, or tried my hands at a debugger, or learnt how simple browser rendering engines work. All of these experiences were magical and addicting, because they opened my mind to what’s possible. And now it happened again.
So, I guess I’ll leave you with a simple piece of advice: open any box you can find. It’s the most rewarding thing you can do, and it will only very rarely blow up in your face!
See you next time!
1. I even asked for permission and gave it proper attribution! The Lua mailing list rocks!
2. This is because we will have to backtrack much more. In general, if we have assumptions such as “The professor name will never contain a colon” or “The course name will never contain a parenthesized section”, it is generally worth encoding them.
3. Hetereogeneous arrays are definitely one of the useful data structures that are missing from most strongly-typed languages. Then again, you’re better off explicitly defining a struct type anyway.
4. The program assumes that you’ve got the curriculum data from Figure 2 stored in a file called