I have an AST from an ANTLR grammar "Mygrammar" and i want to delete the node (with its children) corresponding to the rule "myrule" after testing that "myrule" exists in the AST. I wonder if there's a way to do it by overriding the entermyrule () method from the MygrammarBaseListener or visitmyrule () from MygrammarBaseVisitor since using remove last child () doesn't work.
If you could provide any hint or ressources to look at since the documentation didn't help me, it would be very appreciated.
Related
Does the Antlr4 generated code include anything like an unparser that can use the grammer and the parser tree to reconstruct the original source? How would I invoke that if it exists? I ask because it might be useful in some application and debugging.
It really depends what do you want to achieve. Remember that Lexer tokens which are put onto HIDDEN channel (like comments and which spaces) and are not parsed at all.
The approach I used was
use additional user specific information in lexer token class
parse the source and get AST
rewind the lexer(token source) and loop over all Lexem-es, including the hidden ones
for each hidden Lexeme, append the reference to the corresponding AST leaf
so every AST leaf "know" which white-space Lexemes are following it
recursively traverse the AST and print all the Lexemes
Yes! ANTLR's infrastructure (usually) makes the original source data available.
In the default case, you will be using a CommonTokenStream. This inherits from BufferedTokenStream, which offers a whole slew of methods for getting at stuff.
Methods getHiddenTokensOnLeft (and ...Right) will get you lists of tokens not appearing in the DEFAULT stream. Those tokens will reveal their source text using getText().
What I find even more convenient is BufferedTokenStream.getText(interval), which will give you the text (including hidden) on an Interval, which you can get from your tree element (RuleContext).
To make use of your CommonTokenStream and its methods, you just need to pass it from where you create it and set up your parser to whatever class is examining the parse tree, such as your XXXBaseListener - I just gave my Listener a constructor that stores the CommonTokenStream as an instance field.
So when I want the complete text for a rule ctx, I use this little method:
String originalString(ParserRuleContext ctx) {
return this.tokenStream.getText(ctx.getSourceInterval());
}
Alternatively, the tokens also contain line numbers and offsets, if you want to fiddle with those.
For many cases, a complete AST - as specified in a grammar spec - is great, since other code can obtain any syntactic detail.
Look at this AST forest:
My ANTLR generated parser is meant to statically analyze a programming language. Therefore, the tree variable -> base_variable_with_function_calls -> base_variable ... would't be of interest.
Solely the fact, that $d is a compound_variable would be enough detail.
Therefore: May I set somehow a ANTLR production rules as transient, so that ANTLR silently parses the grammar rule, but doesn't create intermediate AST nodes?
Obviously, such a tag could only be applied to productions, which have a single son node.
No, ANTLR 4 does not support this. The generated parse tree will contain every token matched by the grammar, and will contain a RuleNode for every rule invoked by the grammar.
Let's suppose I have two grammars (and that there is a Lexer defined somewhere), ParserA and ParserB.
In ParserA I have the following code:
parser grammar ParserA;
classDeclaration
scope {
ST mList;
}
...
ParserB is something like:
parser grammar ParserB;
import ParserA;
methodDeclaration : something something { $classDeclaration::mList.add(...) };
The code in the action will fail to compile (by javac) since classDeclaration is in a different class (and file). Any tips on how to fix it?
Any tips on how to fix it?
No, there's (AFAIK) no ANTLR shortcut here: there's no communication possible between imported grammars (either by using scopes or by providing parameters to imported grammar rules).
I have an antlr generated Java parser that uses the C target and it works quite well. The problem is I also want it to parse erroneous code and produce a meaningful AST. If I feed it a minimal Java class with one import after which a semicolon is missing it produces two "Tree Error Node" objects where the "import" token and the tokens for the imported class should be.
But since it parses the following code correctly and produces the correct nodes for this code it must recover from the error by adding the semicolon or by resyncing. Is there a way to make antlr reflect this fixed input it produces internally in the AST? Or can I at least get the tokens/text that produced the "Tree Node Errors" somehow?
In the C targets
antlr3commontreeadaptor.c around line 200 the following fragment indicates that the C target only creates dummy error nodes so far:
static pANTLR3_BASE_TREE
errorNode (pANTLR3_BASE_TREE_ADAPTOR adaptor, pANTLR3_TOKEN_STREAM ctnstream, pANTLR3_COMMON_TOKEN startToken, pANTLR3_COMMON_TOKEN stopToken, pANTLR3_EXCEPTION e)
{
// Use the supplied common tree node stream to get another tree from the factory
// TODO: Look at creating the erronode as in Java, but this is complicated by the
// need to track and free the memory allocated to it, so for now, we just
// want something in the tree that isn't a NULL pointer.
//
return adaptor->createTypeText(adaptor, ANTLR3_TOKEN_INVALID, (pANTLR3_UINT8)"Tree Error Node");
}
Am I out of luck here and only the error nodes the Java target produces would allow me to retrieve the text of the erroneous nodes?
I haven't used antlr much, but typically the way you handle this type of error is to add rules for matching wrong syntax, make them produce error nodes, and try to fix up after errors so that you can keep parsing. Fixing up afterwards is the problem because you don't want one error to trigger more and more errors for each new token until the end.
I solved the problem by adding new alternate rules to the grammer for all possible erroneous statements.
Each Java import statement gets translated to an AST subtree with the artificial symbol IMPORT as the root for example. To make sure that I can differentiate between ASTs from correct and erroneous code the rules for the erroneous statements rewrite them to an AST with a root symbol with the prefix ERR_, so in the example of the import statement the artifical root symbol would be ERR_IMPORT.
More different root symbols could be used to encode more detailed information about the parse error.
My parser is now as error tolerant as I need it to be and it's very easy to add rules for new kinds of erroneous input whenever I need to do so. You have to watch out to not introduce any ambiguities into your grammar, though.
Aside from getting any real work done, I have an itch. My itch is to write a view engine that closely mimics a template system from another language (Template Toolkit/Perl). This is one of those if I had time/do it to learn something new kind of projects.
I've spent time looking at CoCo/R and ANTLR, and honestly, it makes my brain hurt, but some of CoCo/R is sinking in. Unfortunately, most of the examples are about creating a compiler that reads source code, but none seem to cover how to create a processor for templates.
Yes, those are the same thing, but I can't wrap my head around how to define the language for templates where most of the source is the html, rather than actual code being parsed and run.
Are there any good beginner resources out there for this kind of thing? I've taken a ganer at Spark, which didn't appear to have the grammar in the repo.
Maybe that is overkill, and one could just test-replace template syntax with c# in the file and compile it. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc136756.aspx#S2
If you were in my shoes and weren't a language creating expert, where would you start?
The Spark grammar is implemented with a kind-of-fluent domain specific language.
It's declared in a few layers. The rules which recognize the html syntax are declared in MarkupGrammar.cs - those are based on grammar rules copied directly from the xml spec.
The markup rules refer to a limited subset of csharp syntax rules declared in CodeGrammar.cs - those are a subset because Spark only needs to recognize enough csharp to adjust single-quotes around strings to double-quotes, match curley braces, etc.
The individual rules themselves are of type ParseAction<TValue> delegate which accept a Position and return a ParseResult. The ParseResult is a simple class which contains the TValue data item parsed by the action and a new Position instance which has been advanced past the content which produced the TValue.
That isn't very useful on it's own until you introduce a small number of operators, as described in Parsing expression grammar, which can combine single parse actions to build very detailed and robust expressions about the shape of different syntax constructs.
The technique of using a delegate as a parse action came from a Luke H's blog post Monadic Parser Combinators using C# 3.0. I also wrote a post about Creating a Domain Specific Language for Parsing.
It's also entirely possible, if you like, to reference the Spark.dll assembly and inherit a class from the base CharGrammar to create an entirely new grammar for a particular syntax. It's probably the quickest way to start experimenting with this technique, and an example of that can be found in CharGrammarTester.cs.
Step 1. Use regular expressions (regexp substitution) to split your input template string to a token list, for example, split
hel<b>lo[if foo]bar is [bar].[else]baz[end]world</b>!
to
write('hel<b>lo')
if('foo')
write('bar is')
substitute('bar')
write('.')
else()
write('baz')
end()
write('world</b>!')
Step 2. Convert your token list to a syntax tree:
* Sequence
** Write
*** ('hel<b>lo')
** If
*** ('foo')
*** Sequence
**** Write
***** ('bar is')
**** Substitute
***** ('bar')
**** Write
***** ('.')
*** Write
**** ('baz')
** Write
*** ('world</b>!')
class Instruction {
}
class Write : Instruction {
string text;
}
class Substitute : Instruction {
string varname;
}
class Sequence : Instruction {
Instruction[] items;
}
class If : Instruction {
string condition;
Instruction then;
Instruction else;
}
Step 3. Write a recursive function (called the interpreter), which can walk your tree and execute the instructions there.
Another, alternative approach (instead of steps 1--3) if your language supports eval() (such as Perl, Python, Ruby): use a regexp substitution to convert the template to an eval()-able string in the host language, and run eval() to instantiate the template.
There are sooo many thing to do. But it does work for on simple GET statement plus a test. That's a start.
http://github.com/claco/tt.net/
In the end, I already had too much time in ANTLR to give loudejs' method a go. I wanted to spend a little more time on the whole process rather than the parser/lexer. Maybe in version 2 I can have a go at the Spark way when my brain understands things a little more.
Vici Parser (formerly known as LazyParser.NET) is an open-source tokenizer/template parser/expression parser which can help you get started.
If it's not what you're looking for, then you may get some ideas by looking at the source code.