--0-746687406-1018414569=:27638
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1394542470-1018414569=:27638"
--0-1394542470-1018414569=:27638
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
A few weeks ago you replied back to me regarding SYSIO...
Thank you in advance, far in advance.
Quote:
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:11:51 +0000 (UTC)
> I am trying to fork a unix shell command from which I
> can use its output to parse with in Poplog. Here is an
> example from "run_unix_program" that I am trying to
> make work.
Hello Aaron,
I took your advice and adapted a workable procedure from the examples
that you offered a few weeks ago. Well, I've been busy coding with it since.
My problem is that when I use a character repeater to bring the input stream
into the program. the data is not useable until I quote the heck of each literal.
I have a version that uses readline() for input and I have to use no quotes at all.
MY QUESTION IS:
How can I get the 'sys_obey_linerep' stream's data and be
addressable just like the readline() data, but without the use of quotes.
Is there a procedure that will 'flatten' or 'normalize' the lists generated in tail.p
tty.p
reads all input from a tty via readline(). It works to
my expectation, it needs much more work, but I have
a handle on what to do next.
tail.p
reads all input from a file via sysobeylinerep ---> tail.
It kinda works, the problem is that the input stream is
interpreted differently than it's readline() counterpart.
I have to use 'quotes' all over the place. Especially inside of
conditionals and grammar structures.
This is an excerpt from tail.p. Notice how command #79 flips things out.
I know, I could use the null() procedure or catch it with a filter...
I have included both tail.p and tty.p for reference.
Thank you, far in advance.
HERES THE CULPRIT:
vars repeater = sys_obey_linerep('/usr/bin/tail -f /tmp/1');
vars string,list,list2;
until (repeater() ->> list) == newline do
sysparse_string(list, false)-> list1;
enduntil;
SAMPLE OUTPUT:
Setpop
: load tail.p
;;; LOADING tail.p
;;; DECLARING VARIABLE list1
;;; DECLARING VARIABLE respondto
: c();
[John likes Mary]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]
[John likes Mary]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]
[]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]
[John likes Mary and his Dog]** [Not understood at all by this grammar.]
[Mary likes Frank]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]
Yes, the conditionals understand list1, but the recognize() does not:
** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]
If I had used readline()+ tty.p , these would have tested true.
---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
--0-1394542470-1018414569=:27638
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<P>A few weeks ago you replied back to me regarding SYSIO...?
<P> Thank you in advance, far in advance.
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<P>Hello Aaron,</P>
<P>I took your advice and adapted a workable procedure from the examples</P>
<P>that you offered a few weeks ago. Well, I've been busy coding with it since.</P>
<P>My problem is that when I use a character repeater to bring the input stream</P>
<P>into the program. the data is not useable until I quote the heck of each literal.</P>
<P>I have a version that uses readline() for input and I have to use no quotes at all.</P>
<P>MY QUESTION IS:</P>
<P>How can I get the 'sys_obey_linerep' stream's data and be</P>
<P>addressable just like the readline() data, but without the use of quotes.</P>
<P>Is there a procedure that will 'flatten' or 'normalize' the lists generated in tail.p </P>
<P>?</P>
<P>tty.p</P>
<P>reads all input from a tty via readline(). It works to</P>
<P>my expectation, it needs much more work, but I have</P>
<P>a handle on what to do next.</P>
<P>tail.p</P>
<P>reads all input from a file via sysobeylinerep ---> tail.</P>
<P>It kinda works, the problem is that the input stream is</P>
<P>interpreted differently than it's readline() counterpart.</P>
<P>I have to use 'quotes' all over the place. Especially inside of</P>
<P>conditionals and grammar structures.</P>
<P></P>
<P>This is an excerpt from tail.p. Notice how command #79 flips things out.</P>
<P>I know, I could use the null() procedure or catch it with a filter...</P>
<P>?</P>
<P>I have included both tail.p and tty.p for reference.</P>
<P>Thank you, far in advance.</P>
<P>?</P>
<P>HERES THE CULPRIT:</P>
<P>vars repeater = sys_obey_linerep('/usr/bin/tail -f /tmp/1');</P>
<P>vars string,list,list2;</P>
<P>until (repeater() ->> list) == newline do </P>
<P>sysparse_string(list, false)-> list1;</P>
<P>enduntil;</P>
<P>?</P>
<P>SAMPLE OUTPUT:</P>
<P>?</P>
<P>?</P>
<P>Setpop</P>
<P>: load tail.p</P>
<P>;;; LOADING tail.p</P>
<P>;;; DECLARING VARIABLE list1</P>
<P>;;; DECLARING VARIABLE respondto</P>
<P>: c();</P>
<P>[John likes Mary]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]</P>
<P>[John likes Mary]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]</P>
<P>[]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]</P>
<P>[John likes Mary and his Dog]** [Not understood at all by this grammar.]</P>
<P>[Mary likes Frank]** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]</P>
<P>Yes, the conditionals understand list1, but the recognize() does not:</P>
<P>** [Not understood at all by this grammar .]</P></FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
<P>If I had used readline()+ tty.p , these would have tested true.</P></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br>
<a href="$rd_url/welcome/? http://www.*-*-*.com/ ;>Yahoo! Tax Center</a> - online filing with TurboTax
--0-1394542470-1018414569=:27638--
--0-746687406-1018414569=:27638
Content-Type: text/plain; name="tail.p"
Content-Description: tail.p
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tail.p"
uses readpattern;
uses doesmatch;
define c();
vars x, y, z;
vars repeater = sys_obey_linerep('/usr/bin/tail -f /tmp/1');
vars string,list,list2;
until (repeater() ->> list) == '\n' do
sysparse_string(list, false)-> list1;
respondto(list1);
enduntil;
enddefine;
/* define c();
vars x, y, z;
[Construct a case sensitive sentence using:]=>;
[Nouns---> John, Mary or Frank with the verb likes.] =>;
[For example]=>;
[John likes Mary]=>
readline() -> list1;
until list1 matches [ ??x exit ??y ] do
respondto(list1);
readline() -> list1;
enduntil;
enddefine; */
vars grammar_cfg;
[[SENTENCE [NOUN_PHRASE VERB_PHRASE]]
[VERB_PHRASE [VERB NOUN_PHRASE]]
[NOUN_PHRASE [Mary]]
[NOUN_PHRASE [John]]
[NOUN_PHRASE [Frank]]
[VERB [likes]
]] -> grammar_cfg;
define shift(paper) -> new_paper;
vars left, word, words;
if paper matches [?left [?word ??words]] then
[[^^left ^word] ^words] -> new_paper;
else
false -> new_paper;
endif;
enddefine;
define reduce(paper,rule) -> new_paper;
vars cat, rhs, cats, right;
if rule matches [?cat ?rhs]
and paper matches [[??cats ^^rhs] ?right] then
[[^^cats ^cat] ^right] -> new_paper;
else
false -> new_paper;
endif;
enddefine;
/*
* This procedure runs each grammar reduction scenario
* until it finds the solution. The reason for this is that,
* some grammatical sequences have the option of shifting
* a string over to the lhs or it can be reduced to a rule.
* So instead of always shifting and instead of trying out
* a reduction scenario, the the recognize(procedure)
* runs the gambit on all such cases using both
* reduction and shift(s) until the list (sentence)
* is found either true(which means it is a sentence
* or false.<-- Which means it is not a sentance or part of the grammar.
*/
define recognize(input,grammar) -> answer;
vars pile, rule_count, top, new_paper, i;
[[[] ^input]] -> pile;
length(grammar) -> rule_count;
repeat
if pile = [] then
false -> answer;
return();
endif;
if pile matches [[[SENTENCE] []] ??papers] then
true -> answer;
return();
endif;
if pile matches [?top ??pile] then
shift(top) -> new_paper;
if new_paper then
[^new_paper ^^pile] -> pile;
endif;
for i from 1 to rule_count do
reduce(top, grammar(i)) -> new_paper;
if new_paper then
[^new_paper ^^pile] -> pile;
endif;
endfor;
endif;
endrepeat;
enddefine;
define respondto();
vars w, x, y, k;
/* First see if the responsdto(list1) is part of the grammar before the
conditionals. Do I still have to use so many quotes?? */
if recognize(pr(list1), grammar_cfg) == true then
;;; The above fails in tail.p and works in tty.p.
if list1 matches ['John' ??w 'Mary'] then
[You said, 'John' ^^w 'Mary']=>
elseif list1 matches ['Mary' ??w ??x] then
[Mary ^^w ^^x, are you sure about that?]=>
elseif list1 matches [??w 'Frank' ??x] then
[^^w Frank ^^x, Thats enough about Frank!!]=>
elseif list1 matches [??w 'John' ??x] then
[^^w John ^^x, glad you did not mention Mary or Frank.]=>
else
oneof([[Not part of these conditionals.][Sentence, well?!. Gramatical,
NO!][Try again]])=>
endif;
else
[Not understood at all by this grammar.] =>;
endif;
enddefine;
--0-746687406-1018414569=:27638
Content-Type: text/plain; name="tty.p"
Content-Description: tty.p
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tty.p"
uses readpattern;
uses doesmatch;
popnewline = true;
define c();
vars x, y, z;
[Construct a case sensitive sentence using:]=>;
[Nouns---> John, Mary or Frank with the verb likes.] =>;
[For example]=>;
[John likes Mary]=>
readline() -> list1;
until list1 matches [ ??x exit ??y ] do
respondto(list1);
readline() -> list1;
enduntil;
enddefine;
vars grammar_cfg;
[[SENTENCE [NOUN_PHRASE VERB_PHRASE]]
[VERB_PHRASE [VERB NOUN_PHRASE]]
[NOUN_PHRASE [Mary]]
[NOUN_PHRASE [John]]
[NOUN_PHRASE [Frank]]
[VERB [likes]
]] -> grammar_cfg;
define shift(paper) -> new_paper;
vars left, word, words;
if paper matches [?left [?word ??words]] then
[[^^left ^word] ^words] -> new_paper;
else
false -> new_paper;
endif;
enddefine;
define reduce(paper,rule) -> new_paper;
vars cat, rhs, cats, right;
if rule matches [?cat ?rhs]
and paper matches [[??cats ^^rhs] ?right] then
[[^^cats ^cat] ^right] -> new_paper;
else
false -> new_paper;
endif;
enddefine;
/*
* This procedure runs each grammar reduction scenario
* until it finds the solution. The reason for this is that,
* some grammatical sequences have the option of shifting
* a string over to the lhs or it can be reduced to a rule.
* So instead of always shifting and instead of trying out
* a reduction scenario, the the recognize(procedure)
* runs the gambit on all such cases using both
* reduction and shift(s) until the list (sentence)
* is found either true(which means it is a sentence
* or false.<-- Which means it is not a sentance or part of the grammar.
*/
define recognize(input,grammar) -> answer;
vars pile, rule_count, top, new_paper, i;
[[[] ^input]] -> pile;
length(grammar) -> rule_count;
repeat
if pile = [] then
false -> answer;
return();
endif;
if pile matches [[[SENTENCE] []] ??papers] then
true -> answer;
return();
endif;
if pile matches [?top ??pile] then
shift(top) -> new_paper;
if new_paper then
[^new_paper ^^pile] -> pile;
endif;
for i from 1 to rule_count do
reduce(top, grammar(i)) -> new_paper;
if new_paper then
[^new_paper ^^pile] -> pile;
endif;
endfor;
endif;
endrepeat;
enddefine;
define respondto();
vars w, x, y, k;
/* First see if the responsdto(list1) is part of the grammar before the
conditionals. */
if recognize(pr(list1), grammar_cfg) == true then
if list1 matches [John ??w Mary] then
[You said, John ^^w Mary]=>
elseif list1 matches [Mary ??w ??x] then
[Mary ^^w ^^x, are you sure about that?]=>
elseif list1 matches [??w Frank ??x] then
[^^w Frank ^^x, Thats enough about Frank!!]=>
elseif list1 matches [??w John ??x] then
[^^w John ^^x, I hope you did not mention Mary or Frank.]=>
else
oneof([[Not part of these conditionals.][Sentence, well?!. Gramatical,
NO!][Try again]])=>
endif;
else
[Not understood at all by this grammar.] =>;
endif;
enddefine;
--0-746687406-1018414569=:27638--
"run_unix_program" + "pipein"