Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Implement Absent Operator #82

Closed
k-takata opened this issue Dec 14, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Implement Absent Operator #82

k-takata opened this issue Dec 14, 2016 · 5 comments
Labels
todo

Comments

@k-takata
Copy link
Owner

k-takata commented Dec 14, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Slide and paper by Akira Tanaka (@akr) (both Japanese):

TODO:

  • Syntax:
    Maybe the form of (?...) should be used. For example (?~...)?
  • Implementation:
    Is it easy?
@k-takata
Copy link
Owner Author

k-takata commented Dec 15, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Akira's paper says that look-ahead assertion doesn't have theoretical backgrounds. However @sinya8282 says that look-ahead assertion is a regular expression (in context of formal language theory), and it can be proved by using boolean automaton.
Then absent operator can be a syntax sugar of (?:(?!expr)(?m:.))*?

@k-takata
Copy link
Owner Author

k-takata commented Dec 15, 2016 •
edited
Loading

It seems that (?~expr) is different from (?:(?!expr).)*.
\A(?~abc)c should match abc (because (?~abc) matches ab), but \A(?:(?!abc).)*c doesn't match.

https://twitter.com/nalsh/status/809375869626150912

k-takata added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 22, 2016
@k-takata
Add description for absent operator (Issue #82)
e621f69
k-takata added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2016
@k-takata
Implement absent operator (Issue #82)
b88e88f 
(?~subexp) matches any string which doesn't have subexp as its suffix.

This is based on Tanaka Akira's paper and slide:
* https://staff.aist.go.jp/tanaka-akira/pub/prosym49-akr-paper.pdf
* https://staff.aist.go.jp/tanaka-akira/pub/prosym49-akr-presen.pdf
k-takata added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2016
@k-takata
Add documents for absent operator (Issue #82)
8d0f9d3
k-takata added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 23, 2016
@k-takata
Add one more test for absent operator (Issue #82)
3dc15c2
@k-takata k-takata added the todo label Dec 23, 2016
@k-takata
Copy link
Owner Author

topic/absent-operator branch was merged into the master branch.
Maybe more tests are needed, but closing for now.

@k-takata
Copy link
Owner Author

However @sinya8282 says that look-ahead assertion is a regular expression

This is discussed in a paper by Akimasa MORIHATA:

@k-takata
Copy link
Owner Author

Related?
Feature #5588: add negation flag (v) to Regexp - Ruby trunk - Ruby Issue Tracking System

hsbt pushed a commit to ruby/ruby that referenced this issue Feb 11, 2017
@nurse
Merge Onigmo 6.1.1
6b1c6e0 
* Support absent operator k-takata/Onigmo#82
* https://github.com/k-takata/Onigmo/blob/Onigmo-6.1.1/HISTORY

git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/trunk@57603 b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
hsbt pushed a commit to ruby/ruby that referenced this issue Mar 13, 2017
@nurse
merge revision(s) 57603: [Backport #12997]
5398ef4 
	Merge Onigmo 6.1.1

	* Support absent operator k-takata/Onigmo#82
	* https://github.com/k-takata/Onigmo/blob/Onigmo-6.1.1/HISTORY

git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/branches/ruby_2_4@57957 b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
@znz znz mentioned this issue Mar 22, 2017
Closed
@eregon eregon mentioned this issue Oct 6, 2017
Closed
70 tasks
@headius headius mentioned this issue Dec 1, 2017
Closed
75 tasks
@eregon eregon mentioned this issue Dec 15, 2017
Closed
61 tasks
@headius headius mentioned this issue Mar 27, 2018
Closed
12 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
todo
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@k-takata