FunctionList.xml Regular Expressions not parsing properly

Brian Zelt

I guess I’m not doing this correctly:
here {star} means asterix
“^([^c]).{star}(function|FUNCTION|subroutine|SUBROUTINE)[\s]{star}\K([\w]+)”

MAPJe71

@brian-zelt
Enclose the text in back ticks in stead of double quotes or read the manual for markdown syntax .

Brian Zelt

Thanks, for the example. It, however, does not match all of the examples I listed.

My point also, however, was not requesting a Fortran parser (although appreciated) but rather that NP++ was not parsing the RE as expected. That is, there appears to be a bug(s) in the implementation of RE in NP++ or how NP++ is sending text strings to be parsed.

MAPJe71

was not requesting a Fortran parser

My bad, retry …

I tried your RE ^([^c]).*(function|FUNCTION|subroutine|SUBROUTINE)[\s]*\K([\w]+)
on regex101.com with flags/options m and g set (even tried different combinations) but was not able to get all the subroutine names from following examples (I presumed the double quotes had to be excluded):

 SUBROUTINE bob(a,b,c)
SUBROUTINE bob(a,b,c)
 SUBROUTINE bob()
 SUBROUTINE bob( )
 SUBROUTINE bob
 SUBROUTINE bob 
c SUBROUTINE bob(a,b,c)
 PRIVATE SUBROUTINE bob(a,b,c) return(d)

i.e. the second example does not give a match.

This was actually what I expected after reading your RE i.e. I did not expect regex101.com to

correctly provide the subroutine name for all of examples

just as N++ does not.

This one will …

(?m-s)^(?!c).*(?i:FUNCTION|SUBROUTINE)\s*\K\w+

Created with RegexBuddy

Brian Zelt

Thanks. I forgot about regexbuddy. Correct, the RE I supplied did not work on the one example. I believe I missed an additional asterix after the initial group when I used the wrong quotes. However, your proposal works better, with the addition of:

(?m-s)^(?!c|C).*(?i:FUNCTION|SUBROUTINE)\s*\K\w+

The point remains, however, that when this RE is inserted in functionlist.xml, NP++ does not parse the subroutines properly as described in the original inquiry.

Scott Sumner

@MAPJe71

So…I’ve kinda wondered in the past about what you did in your post, so it is a good time to ask. You posted RegexBuddy output. So people get the benefit of RB’s “wisdom” without paying for it (like we have - :) ). It sorta seems wrong to me, a little bit, but is it OK to do? Maybe a question best for Jan…

So here’s a great example. Yesterday I answered a regex question (https://notepad-plus-plus.org/community/topic/13556/replace-last-value-in-row-with-0), and I supplied my own explanation, but I was tempted to use RB to generate the explanation, but in the end I didn’t.

Brian Zelt

Thanks S.S., I haven’t read RB policy’s with respect to re-posting the RB output. RB was correctly referenced to being the source.

Again, the point this thread is whether or not NP++ has a bug in the RE processing for FunctionList.xml.

Has anybody looked at the source code for NP++ for FunctionList?

MAPJe71

@Scott-Sumner
Uhm…to be honest it hadn’t even crossed my mind to look up RB’s policy on posting a copy of the RegEx Tree.

@Brian-Zelt
Yes, I’ve looked at NP++'s FunctionList code in the past (SourceForge era). I created a patch for it that never got merged. On request I am in the process of re-creating that patch on current code base in addition to cleaning up and adding RE explanation as comment to functionList.xml.
There are known issues with the RE engine (as explained by @guy038 here). Both “Search (& Replace)” and FunctionList use the same RE engine. When a RE works with “Search (& Replace)” it will work with FunctionList.
However, defining a parser in FunctionList can be tricky.

Maybe you can post the complete parser so I (or anyone else) can check it.

Brian Zelt

Interesting…I played with the commentExpr RE. And now the parser seems to be working. I can’t duplicate the original commentExpr but it was copied from someone’s posted example that included only the fortran ! comment and not the start of line c comment. The original seemed harmless.

So, the final fortran parser I have is listed below. I contains a possible flaw that only a single space is allowed between the ‘end’ and ‘function’, whereas a good RE should allow for any number of spaces, but the RE doesn’t permit \s* in the code below.
`

		<association langID="25" id="fortran_function"/>

		<parser id="fortran_function" displayName="Fortran" commentExpr="(!.*?$|^(?i:c).*?$)">
			<function
				mainExpr="(?m-s)^(?!c|C).*(?i:(?<!END\s)FUNCTION|(?<!END\s)SUBROUTINE)\s*\K(\w+)"
				displayMode="$functionName$">
				<functionName>
					<nameExpr expr="[\w]+"/>
				</functionName>
			</function>
		</parser

`
For testing, the following fortran code:

`
c----------------------------------------------------------------------
subroutine MYSUB1(iunit0,i,lprt,lnfl2)
return
end

  subroutine MYSUB2( )
  return
  end

  subroutine MYSUB3 (  
   )
  return
  end

  subroutine MYSUB4()
  return
  end

  subroutine MYSUB5   
  return
  end

  subroutine MYSUB6
  return
  end

c subroutine MYSUB7(a,b,c)
return
end

  private subroutine MYSUB8(a,b,c) return(d) 

  end

subroutine MYSUB9
return
end

  subroutine MYSUB10
  return
  end subroutine MYSUB10a

  
  !   subroutine MYSUB11(a,b,c)   
  return
  end

c----------------------------------------------------------------------

`

should produce, a list:
MYSUB1
MYSUB2
MYSUB3
MYSUB4
MYSUB5
MYSUB6
MYSUB8
MYSUB9
MYSUB10
Note that MYSUB7 and MYSUB11 are commented and are correctly not in the list.

Using the functionList.xml on existing code files now appears to work for fixed form or free form fortran. For some files, however, the parser only works if I select language ‘fortran free form’ even though the formatting is language ‘fortran fixed form’. Copying the contents of such a file to a new file, corrects the issue, so I suspect there may be a file encoding error embedded in the file that is not otherwise apparent.

So… the solution appeared to be related to multiple levels RE in the functionList.xml processing. In this case, perhaps the comment vs the function name (although, I can’t duplicate my original issue).

MAPJe71

Hi @Brian-Zelt

Are END and SUBROUTINE (or FUNCTION) allowed to be on separate lines?
e.g.

subroutine MYSUB12
return
end 
  subroutine MYSUB12a

FYI:

With the updated commentExpr it’s no longer needed to have (?!c|C) in the mainExpr;
Using a (numbered-)capturing group for the identifier ((\w+) in the mainExpr) doesn’t add functionality;
The nameExpr can be simplified to \w+;
Make sure to encode special XML characters i.e. change < to <
Free form style uses langID="25" and fixed form style uses langID="59". You could create separate (dedicated) parsers or have both styles associated with the same parser.

Brian Zelt

Thanks MAPje71,
All good points. I couldn’t find a listing of the langID but assumed there must be a better list. Thanks for langID=59.
Yes, “end function” must be on a single line.

MAPJe71

FYI: The newest functionList.xml has a language ID table as comment at the top of the associationMap-node.