Haskell has an option for user defined reductions. I have no idea how it works.
Felix also has two ways to do this.
The first way is complete but hard to use: the parser accepts user defined patterns in the form of grammar productions, and then the user writes Scheme code to manipulate the parse tree to produce any combination of a fixed set of AST terms they like.
The second way is simpler but typed, and looks roughly like this:
reduce strings | (a:string,b:string) : a + b=> scat ([b,a]) ; reduce scat2 | (x:list[string], y:string) : scat ([y, scat x]) => scat (Snoc (x,y)) ;
Its polymorphic though that's not seen in this example. The vertical bar indicates you can provide several alternatives which are tried in sequence. The algorithm applies each reduction, and each is applied top down. The above example doesn't work! The intent was to replace string concatenation using a left associative binary operator with a faster function scat, operating on a list. Clearly I needed the algo to work bottom up.
The contrast between these two methods is that the first method has a complete general purpose programming language available to perform the reductions, the pattern matching uses a fixed algorithm (the GLR+ parser). The second method recognises terms and performs the reductions using a fixed algorithm so is much weaker.
What I want is something less complex than having to hand write the whole reduction machinery in a general purpose language (I could do that, using dynamically compiled and loaded Ocaml modules but it's too hard for end users).
So I'm looking for a *compromise* which is reasonably simple, but also reasonably capable. I added alternatives for this reason and am thinking to add an adjective which specifies if a reduction should be applied top down or bottom up. A more complex option is to allow for nested reductions (so that if one reduction succeeds it triggers another one).
Active forum topics
New forum topics