On Sun 11 Jul 2010 09:48, Michael Lucy <michaelgl...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Humm, another thing to think about: (ice-9 regex) returns "match >> structures", which are really just vectors; have a look at them, and if >> it makes sense to mimic that interface, re-exporting those accessors >> somehow, please do. > > So, three potential paths from here: > 1. Mimic the match structure interface as much as possible. > 2. Have a similar but differently-named "peg-match structure" > interface that behaves mostly the same but has a few different > functions (I think naming them something slightly different would lead > to fewer people assuming they worked exactly the same as match > structures). > 3. Just having a different interface. > > I'm leaning toward (2); what do other people think? I'd probably: > 1. Not have a peg-match:count function at all. > 2. Not have the functions take submatch numbers. > 3. Have peg-match:substring return the actual substring. > 4. Have another function peg-match:parse-tree that returns the parse > tree. Yes, if the needs are different, there's no sense in trying to horn the present into the past's shoe. Take the good conventions from (ice-9 match), but there is no strict need for compatibility. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/