# Introduction

Brainstract, a newly created dialect of Brainfuck adds a bit more elements to the syntax. In addition to the normal Brainfuck syntax, there are macros. To define a macro:

{macro_name ++++}


Then use it:

{macro_name} Adds 4 to the current cell


# Challenge

Your challenge is to take a valid Brainstract program as input (command-line-arguments, function arguments, STDIN or file), and output a valid Brainfuck program that is equivalent to the Brainstract program (non-brainfuck characters are allowed in output). You may assume all input will be valid Brainstract.

# Brainstract Spec

Whitespace counts as ANY whitespace (tabs, spaces, etc.)

A macro is defined by an opening brace character ({) followed by a macro name which must be made up of any characters except whitespace, brainfuck, and Brainstract characters (anything except whitespace and {}[]<>+-.,)

Then, it is followed by any amount of whitespace and a macro definition, made up of macro calls and non-brace characters and finally the macro is closed off with a closing brace (})

A macro call is of the form {macro_name} where macro name is the same as above.

# Examples

Format: Input -> Output

{cat ,.} {cat}{cat}{cat}            -> ,.,.,.
{recursive ,.{recursive}}           -> (undefined behavior)
++++ {decrement -} ++++ {decrement} -> ++++++++-
{a >>>---<<<} {b {a}{a}} {b}        -> >>>---<<<>>>---<<<


# Standard Loopholes apply, and shortest code wins

• Could you perhaps add some test cases? Example Brainstract programs and their expected Brainfuck program outputs? – Kevin Cruijssen Sep 19 '18 at 13:42
• @KevinCruijssen Will do – FireCubez Sep 19 '18 at 13:44
• Could you also link to a Brainstract documentation? – Jonathan Frech Sep 19 '18 at 14:03
• @FireCubez Under those circumstances, I would suggest mentioning that the language is newly created and adding a more sophisticated language definition -- what counts as a macro_name, which characters can be used as macros, etc. – Jonathan Frech Sep 19 '18 at 14:19
• Is {cat ,.} {cat3 {cat}{cat}{cat}} {cat3} a valid input? – Arnauld Sep 19 '18 at 14:28

# JavaScript (Node.js), 113108 102 bytes

-5 bytes because input will always be valid brainstract
-6 bytes thanks to Cows quack for regex function golfs

x=>{while(m=/({\w+)\s+(\W+)}/.exec(x))x=x.replace(eval(/${m[1]}}/g),m[2]).replace(m[0],'');return x}  Try it online! TIO Link includes a test suite of all 4 "valid" test cases provided in the OP. The invalid recursive macro test was ignored as, given it's undefined behavior and our program can whatever, there's no need to test it; the result is irrelevant. ## Ungolfed Explanation: fun = code => { // While there's a macro definition in the code while(match = /{(\w+)\s+(\W+)}/.exec(code)) { // Replace calls to the macro with the macro's code code = code.replace(eval(/${m[1]}}/g),m[2])
// And remove the definition from the code
.replace(m[0],'');
}
// Remove all spaces from the code and return
return x;
}


The entire function relies on the regex: /{(\w+)\s+(\W+)}/
This should match any valid macro definition and include the macro name in Capture Group 1, and the macro's code in Capture Group 2.

Due to how JS's regex.exec() returns, m[0] is the whole matched string (the entire macro definition), m[1] is the string matched by Capture Group 1 (the macro name) and m[2] is the string matched by Capture Group 2 (the macro's code)

We can then replace all instances of {m[1]} with m[2], then remove the first instance of m[0] in order to remove the macro definition. This is required in part due to the way brainfuck would interpret the macro definition, and in part due to the way the while loop in this function works (it finds the first definition in the code, if we don't remove the definition after we've processed it, it'll keep finding the first definition over and over)

However, our first capture group m[1] also includes the opening brace { of the macro definition. This is so that when replacing {m[1]} with m[2], we actually only need to replace m[1]}, which saves a byte.

Unfortunately including a variable m[1] in a RegExp in JS is a bit costly, as we need to eval the regex, which adds 6 bytes.

There's probably quite a bit of golfing room in this answer, as there tends to me in my NodeJS answers.
If anybody has any suggestions for golfing, let me know in the comments.

• The new appears to be redundant, but eval(/${m[1]}}/g) is still shorter. Also exec is shorter than match – Cows quack Dec 20 '18 at 16:20 • @Cowsquack oh nice, thanks! – Skidsdev Dec 20 '18 at 16:27 • 85 – ASCII-only Dec 20 '18 at 23:48 • 80 – ASCII-only Dec 22 '18 at 10:18 • but according to the comment, 94 – ASCII-only Dec 22 '18 at 10:20 # Ruby, 74+1 = 75 bytes Add one byte for the p flag. (k=$2;gsub(/#$1( .+?)?\}/){$1?p: k})while~/(\{\w+) (([^{}]|\{\g<2>\})*)\}/


Try it online!

# PHP, 197196 186 bytes

<?php $p=$argv[$c=1];$m=[];while($c)$p=preg_replace_callback("/\{(\w+)(\s((?0)|[^{])+)?\}/",function($a)use(&$m){return count($a)<3?$m[$a[1]]:[$m[$a[1]]=$a[2],""][1];},$p,-1,$c);echo $p;  Try it online! ### 185 if only one kind of whitespace is accepted (by changing the regex to /\{(\w+)( ((?0)|[^{])+)?\}/) but I'm not sure whether this is valid. I was tempted to use JavaScript but the RegExp class in JS doesn't support RE recursion... # Python 2, 133 bytes import re s=input() while'{'in s:x=re.findall('{.*? (?:[^{]|{.+})*?}',s)[0];d,c=x.split(' ',1);s=s.replace(x,'').replace(d,c) print s  Try it online! • 118, maybe. idk – ASCII-only Dec 22 '18 at 10:35 • @ASCII-only Maybe you want this 127-byte version, but it doesn't work if you stick a letter in the code part of the macro. – Erik the Outgolfer Dec 22 '18 at 10:54 • "non-brainfuck characters are allowed in output" – ASCII-only Dec 22 '18 at 11:22 • @ASCII-only No, I mean that, if you do {someMacro >>>--t-<<<} instead of {someMacro >>>---<<<}, your code doesn't work. – Erik the Outgolfer Dec 22 '18 at 11:25 # Perl 5-p, 47 bytes -11 bytes with ideas from @ASCII-only $s=$2,s/\Q$1}/$s/g while s/(\{\S+)\s+(\S+?)\}//  Try it online! • 40? – ASCII-only Dec 22 '18 at 10:25 • Replacing \s+ with   works for all the current testcases as well. hmm – ASCII-only Dec 22 '18 at 10:28 • @ASCII-only From a comment: "[The space between the macro name and definition must be] any whitespace character" – FireCubez Dec 22 '18 at 11:12 • @ASCII-only I don't think yours works in all cases. Take a look at the last test case in my new link. – Xcali Dec 22 '18 at 18:35 • This should work for 41 bytes. – DLosc Mar 7 at 5:27 # Pip, 33 bytes Wa~({\S+)(.+?)}a:$.$'R$1.'}$2a  Try it online! Very similar approach to Xcali's Perl solution, though mostly independently derived.* Wa~({\S+)(.+?)}a:$.$'R$1.'}$2a a is 1st cmdline argument (implicit) Wa~  While this regex matches in a: ({\S+) First group: { followed by non-whitespace characters (.+?) Second group: more characters, as few as possible... } ... followed by } This matches a macro definition, including all the whitespace as part of the replacement code (It doesn't work for macro definitions with macro calls inside them, but the leftmost definition at any time will not have a macro call inside it) So while possible, match the first occurrence, and: a: Set a to:$                 The portion of the string left of the match
.$' concatenated to the portion right of the match R In that string, replace$1.'}        match group 1 plus a trailing } (i.e. a macro call)
\$2      with match group 2 (the macro's code)
a  When the loop exits, output the final value of a


* That is, I saw the Perl solution's byte count, went "How?!...", and finally realized I could assume a few things that made the code a lot shorter.

# Java 8, 251 bytes

226 bytes of code + 25 bytes for java.lang.regex.* import. I can't lambda this since you can't use recursion in a lambda function (self-reference). This just about ignores recursive macros (the space is removed).

import java.util.regex.*;
...
String f(String s){Pattern p=Pattern.compile("\\{(\\w+)\\s+(\\W+)\\}");Matcher m=p.matcher(s);while(m.find())s=s.replace("{"+m.group(1)+"}",m.group(2)).replace(m.group(0),"");return p.matcher(s).find()?f(s):s.replace(" ","");}
`