I'm pretty sure this isn't possible, but I want to ask just in case.
I have the common ID token definition:
ID: LETTER (LETTER | DIG)*;
The problem is that in the grammar I need to parse, there are some instructions in which you have a single character as operand, like:
a + 4
but
ab + 4
is not possible.
So I can't write a rule like:
sum: (INT | LETTER) ('+' (INT | LETTER))*
Because the lexer will consider 'a' as an ID, due to the higher priority of ID. (And I can't change that priority because it wouldn't recognize single character IDs then)
So I can only use ID instead of LETTER in that rule. It's ugly because there shouldn't be an ID, just a single letter, and I will have to do a second syntactic analysis to check that.
I know that there's nothing to do about it, since the lexer doesn't understand about context. What I'm thinking that maybe there's already built-in ANTLR4 is some kind of way to check the token's length inside the rule. Something like:
sum: (INT | ID{length=1})...
I would also like to know if there are some kind of "token alias" so I can do:
SINGLE_CHAR is alias of => ID
In order to avoid writing "ID" in the rule, since that can be confusing.
PD: I'm not parsing a simple language like this one, this is just a little example. In reality, an ID could also be a string, there are other tokens which can only be a subset of letters, etc... So I think I will have to do that second analysis anyways after parsing the entry to check that syntactically is legal. I'm just curious if something like this exists.
Checking the size of an identifier is a semantic problem and should hence be handled in the semantic phase, which usually follows the parsing step. Parse your input with the usual ID rule and check in the constructed parse tree the size of the recognized ids (and act accordingly). Don't try to force this kind of decision into your grammar.
Related
If i have following language { x is element of {a,b}*, where 2#a(x)=3#b(x), then the cfg of that language is :
S=>SaSaSaSbSbS |SaSaSbSaSbS|SaSaSbSbSaS | SaSbSaSaSbS| SaSbSaSbSaS | SaSbSbSaSaS |SbSaSaSaSbS |SbSaSaSbSaS |SbSaSbSaSaS |SbSbSaSaSaS | epsilon/lambda
Is this correct? If this isnt correct/there's another more simple form, can you tell it? I have no clue on another form other than that.
At a glance it looks like this probably works:
your base case is good; the empty string is in the language
you cover all your inductive cases: you only add 2 a and 3 b and you cover all arrangements
I am not seeing a fundamentally simpler solution than this, although you might be able to remove either the leading or the trailing S from the right-hand side of all productions; then, by choosing a production you'd be committing to that first or last terminal symbol, but I think that still works out. Possibly even removing both leading and trailing S so you commit to both the first and the last. Any other simplification seems like it would increase the number of productions or the number of nonterminals, or both, which while possibly reducing the total number of symbols needed to encode the grammar, arguably doesn't make the grammar any simpler (indeed, more nonterminals and productions is typically seen as more complicated, not less). If you want to experiment with adding productions or nonterminals, consider e.g. T => Sa and R => Sb, just to cut down on repetition.
How is ANTLR lexer behavior defined in the case of conflicting tokens?
Let me explain what I mean by "conflicting" tokens.
For example, assume that the following is defined:
INT_STAGE : '1'..'6';
INT : '0'..'9'+;
There is a conflict here, because after reading a sequence of digits, the lexer would not know whether there is one INT or many INT_STAGE tokens (or different combinations of both).
After a test, it looks like that if INT is defined after INT_STAGE, the lexer would prefer to find INT_STAGE, but maybe not INT then? Otherwise, no INT_STAGE would ever be found.
Another example would be:
FOOL: ' fool'
FOO: 'foo'
ID : ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'_'|'%') ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'0'..'9'|'_'|'%')*;
I was told that this is the "right" order to recognize all the tokens:
while reading "fool" the lexer will find one FOOL token and not FOO ID or something else.
The following logic applies:
the lexer matches as much characters as possible
if after applying rule 1, there are 2 or more rules that match the same amount of characters, the rule defined first will "win"
Taking this into account, the input "1", "2", ..., "6" is tokenized as an INT_STAGE: both INT_STAGE and INT match the same amount of characters, but INT_STAGE is defined first.
The input "12" is tokenized as a INT since it matches the most characters.
I was told that this is the "right" order to recognize all the tokens: while reading "fool" the lexer will find one FOOL token and not FOO ID or something else.
That is correct.
I'm currently attempting to write a UCUM parser using ANTLR4. My current approach has involved defining every valid unit and prefix as a token.
Here's a very small subset of the defined tokens. I could make a cut-down version of the grammar as an example, but it seems like it shouldn't be necessary to resolve this problem (or to point out that I'm going about this entirely the wrong way).
MILLI_OR_METRE: 'm' ;
OSMOLE: 'osm' ;
MONTH: 'mo' ;
SECOND: 's' ;
One of the standard testcases is mosm, from which the lexer should generate the token stream MILLI_OR_METRE OSMOLE. Unfortunately, because ANTLR preferentially matches longer tokens, it generates the token stream MONTH SECOND MILLI_OR_METRE, which then causes the parser to raise an error.
Is it possible to make an ANTLR4 lexer try to match using shorter tokens first? Adding lookahead-type rules to MONTH isn't a great solution, as there are all sorts of potential lexing conflicts that I'd need to take account of (for example mol being lexed as MONTH LITRE instead of MOLE and so on).
EDIT:
StefanA below is of course correct; this is a job for a parser capable of backtracking (eg. recursive descent, packrat, PEG and probably various others... Coco/R is one reasonable package to do this). In an attempt to avoid adding a dependency on another parser generator (or moving other bits of the project from ANTLR to this new generator) I've hacked my way around the problem like this:
MONTH: 'mo' { _input.La(1) != 's' && _input.La(1) != 'l' && _input.La(1) != '_' }? ;
// (note: this is a C# project; java would use _input.LA instead)
but this isn't really a very extensible or maintainable solution, and like as not will have introduced other subtle issues I've not come across yet.
Your problem does not require smaller tokens to be preferred (In this case MONTH would never be matched). You need a backtracking behaviour dependent on the text being matched or not. Right?
ANTLR separates tokenization and parsing strictly. Consequently every solution to your problem will seem like a hack.
However other parser generators are specialized on problems like yours. Packrat Parsers (PEG) are backtracking and allow tokenization on the fly. Try out parboiled for this purpose.
Appears that the question is not being framed correctly.
I'm currently attempting to write a UCUM parser using ANTLR4. My current approach has involved defining every valid unit and prefix as a token.
But, according to the UCUM:
The expression syntax of The Unified Code for Units of Measure generates an infinite number of codes with the consequence that it is impossible to compile a table of all valid units.
The most to expect from the lexer is an unambiguous identification of the measurement string without regard to its semantic value. Similarly, a parser alone will be unable to validly select between unit sequences like MONTH LITRE and MOLE - both could reasonably apply to a leak rate - unless the problem space is statically constrained in the parser definition.
A heuristic, structural (explicitly identifying the problem space) or contextual (considering the relative nature of other units in the problem space), is most likely required to select the correct unit interpretation.
The best tool to use is the one that puts you in the best position to implement the heuristics necessary to disambiguate the unit strings. Antlr could do it using parse-tree walkers. Whether that is the appropriate approach requires further analysis.
So, I'm writing a language using flex/bison and I'm having difficulty with implementing identifiers, specifically when it comes to knowing when you're looking at an assignment or a reference,
for example:
1) A = 1+2
2) B + C (where B and C have already been assigned values)
Example one I can work out by returning an ID token from flex to bison, and just following a grammar that recognizes that 1+2 is an integer expression, putting A into the symbol table, and setting its value.
examples two and three are more difficult for me because: after going through my lexer, what's being returned in ex.2 to bison is "ID PLUS ID" -> I have a grammar that recognizes arithmetic expressions for numerical values, like INT PLUS INT (which would produce an INT), or DOUBLE MINUS INT (which would produce a DOUBLE). if I have "ID PLUS ID", how do I know what type the return value is?
Here's the best idea that I've come up with so far: When tokenizing, every time an ID comes up, I search for its value and type in the symbol table and switch out the ID token with its respective information; for example: while tokenizing, I come across B, which has a regex that matches it as being an ID. I look in my symbol table and see that it has a value of 51.2 and is a DOUBLE. So instead of returning ID, with a value of B to bison, I'm returning DOUBLE with a value of 51.2
I have two different solutions that contradict each other. Here's why: if I want to assign a value to an ID, I would say to my compiler A = 5. In this situation, if I'm using my previously described solution, What I'm going to get after everything is tokenized might be, INT ASGN INT, or STRING ASGN INT, etc... So, in this case, I would use the former solution, as opposed to the latter.
My question would be: what kind of logical device do I use to help my compiler know which solution to use?
NOTE: I didn't think it necessary to post source code to describe my conundrum, but I will if anyone could use it effectively as a reference to help me understand their input on this topic.
Thank you.
The usual way is to have a yacc/bison rule like:
expr: ID { $$ = lookupId($1); }
where the the lookupId function looks up a symbol in the symbol table and returns its type and value (or type and storage location if you're writing a compiler rather than a strict interpreter). Then, your other expr rules don't need to care whether their operands come from constants or symbols or other expressions:
expr: expr '+' expr { $$ = DoAddition($1, $3); }
The function DoAddition takes the types and values (or locations) for its two operands and either adds them, producing a result, or produces code to do the addition at run time.
If possible redesign your language so that the situation is unambiguous. This is why even Javascript has var.
Otherwise you're going to need to disambiguate via semantic rules, for example that the first use of an identifier is its declaration. I don't see what the problem is with your case (2): just generate the appropriate code. If B and C haven't been used yet, a value-reading use like this should be illegal, but that involves you in control flow analysis if taken to the Nth degree of accuracy, so you might prefer to assume initial values of zero.
In any case you can see that it's fundamentally a language design problem rather than a coding problem.
I am very new to Flex/Bison, So it is very navie question.
Pardon me if so. May look like homework question - but I need to implement project based on below concept.
My question is related to two parts,
Question 1
In Bison parser, How do I provide rules for optional input.
Like, I need to parse the statment
Example :
-country='USA' -state='INDIANA' -population='100' -ratio='0.5' -comment='Census study for Indiana'
Here the ratio token can be optional. Similarly, If I have many tokens optional, then How do I provide the grammar in the parser for the same?
My code looks like,
%start program
program : TK_COUNTRY TK_IDENTIFIER TK_STATE TK_IDENTIFIER TK_POPULATION TK_IDENTIFIER ...
where all the tokens are defined in the lexer. Since there are many tokens which are optional, If I use "|" then there will be many different ways of input combination possible.
Question 2
There are good chance that the comment might have quotes as part of the input, so I have added a token -tag which user can provide to interpret the same,
Example :
-country='USA' -state='INDIANA' -population='100' -ratio='0.5' -comment='Census study for Indiana$'s population' -tag=$
Now, I need to reinterpret Indiana$'s as Indiana's since -tag=$.
Please provide any input or related material for to understand these topic.
Q1: I am assuming we have 4 possible tokens: NAME , '-', '=' and VALUE
Then the grammar could look like this:
attrs:
attr attrs
| attr
;
attr:
'-' NAME '=' VALUE
;
Note that, unlike you make specific attribute names distinguished tokens, there is no way to say "We must have country, state and population, but ratio is optional."
This would be the task of that part of the program that analyses the data produced by the parser.
Q2: I understand this so, that you think of changing the way lexical analysis works while the parser is running. This is not a good idea, at least not for a beginner. Have you even started to think about lexical analysis, as opposed to parsing?