I'm having trouble understanding the rfc5545 concerning the the until and count. From what I understand, UNTIL and COUNT cannot be in the same recur rule according to this part of the RFC:
Value Name: RECUR
Purpose: This value type is used to identify properties that
contain a recurrence rule specification.
Formal Definition: The value type is defined by the following
notation:
recur = "FREQ"=freq *(
; either UNTIL or COUNT may appear in a 'recur',
; but UNTIL and COUNT MUST NOT occur in the same 'recur'
...
Further in the rfc, this is stated:
If multiple BYxxx rule parts are specified, then after evaluating the
specified FREQ and INTERVAL rule parts, the BYxxx rule parts are
applied to the current set of evaluated occurrences in the following
order: BYMONTH, BYWEEKNO, BYYEARDAY, BYMONTHDAY, BYDAY, BYHOUR,
BYMINUTE, BYSECOND and BYSETPOS; then COUNT and UNTIL are evaluated.
This last paragraph seems to imply that the COUNT and UNTIL can be in the same RRULE.
When I check libraries that implement rrule generator and parsing, there is no validation that make sure that the the COUNT and UNTIL are not in the same recur.
What is the general implementation that everyone usually do with this ? Should we ignore this validation and simply use the UNTIL parameter when there is both COUNT and UNTIL (or vice versa) ? What does the RFC mean exactly concerning the COUNT and UNTIL parameter ?
I don't think you can derive from the second paragraph that having both is valid.
There is only one definition of RECUR and the cardinality of its various components: the ABNF definition. This is where you should go to check the validity of your property.
The second paragraph simply describes the algorithm to use for doing RRULE expansion.
Related
I have review multiple instructions on URL-parameters which all suggest 2 approaches:
Parameters can follow / forward slashes or be specified by parameter name and then by parameter value. so either:
1) http://numbersapi.com/42
or
2) http://numbersapi.com/random?min=10&max=20
For the 2nd one, I provide parameter name and then parameter value by using the ?. I also provide multiple parameters using ampersand.
Now I have see the request below which works fine but does not fit into the rules above:
http://numbersapi.com/42?json
I understand that the requests sets 42 as a parameter but why is the ? not followed by the parameter name and just by the value. Also the ? seems to be used as an ampersand???
From Wikipedia:
Every HTTP URL conforms to the syntax of a generic URI. The URI generic syntax consists of a hierarchical sequence of five components:
URI = scheme:[//authority]path[?query][#fragment]
where the authority component divides into three subcomponents:
authority = [userinfo#]host[:port]
This is represented in a syntax diagram as:
As you can see, the ? ends the path part of the URL and starts the query part.
The query part is usually a &-separated string of name=value pairs, but it doesn't have to be, so json is a valid value for the query part.
Or, as the Wikipedia articles says it:
An optional query component preceded by a question mark (?), containing a query string of non-hierarchical data. Its syntax is not well defined, but by convention is most often a sequence of attribute–value pairs separated by a delimiter.
It is also fairly common for request processors to treat a name=value pair that is missing the = sign, as if the it was name=.
E.g. if you're writing Servlet code and call servletRequest.getParameter("json"), it would return an empty string ("") for that last URL in the question.
I have the following ABNF grammar:
zero = ["0"] "0"
I would expect this to match the strings 0 and 00, but it only seems to match 00? Why?
repl-it demo: https://repl.it/#DanStevens/abnf-rule-zero-0-0-matches-00-but-not-0
Good question.
ABNF ("Augmented Backus Naur Form"9 is defined by RFC 5234, which is the current version of a document intended to clarify a notation used (with variations) by many RFCs.
Unfortunately, while RFC 5234 exhaustively describes the syntax of ABNF, it does not provide much in the way of a clear statement of semantics. In particular, it does not specify whether ABNF alternation is unordered (as it is in the formal language definitions of BNF) or ordered (as it is in "PEG" -- Parsing Expression Grammar -- notation). Note that optionality/repetition are just types of alternation, so if you choose one convention for alternation, you'll most likely choose it for optionality and repetition as well.
The difference is important in cases like this. If alternation is ordered, then the parser will not backup to try a different alternative after some alternative succeeds. In terms of optionality, this means that if an optional element is present in the stream, the parser will never reconsider the decision to accept the optional element, even if some subsequent element cannot be matched. If you take that view, then alternation does not distribute over concatenation. ["0"]"0" is precisely ("0"/"")"0", which is different from "00"/"0". The latter expression would match a single 0 because the second alternative would be tried after the first one failed. The former expression, which you use, will not.
I do not believe that the authors of RFC 5234 took this view, although it would have been a lot more helpful had they made that decision explicit in the document. My only real evidence to support my belief is that the ABNF included in RFC 5234 to describe ABNF itself would fail if repetition was considered ordered. In particular, the rule for repetitions:
repetition = [repeat] element
repeat = 1*DIGIT / (*DIGIT "*" *DIGIT)
cannot match 7*"0", since the 7 will be matched by the first alternative of repeat, which will be accepted as satisfying the optional [repeat] in repetition, and element will subsequently fail.
In fact, this example (or one similar to it) was reported to the IETF as an erratum in RFC 5234, and the erratum was rejected as unnecessary, because the verifier believed that the correct parse should be produced, thus providing evidence that the official view is that ABNF is not a variant of PEG. Apparently, this view is not shared by the author of the APG parser generator (who also does not appear to document their interpretation.) The suggested erratum chose roughly the same solution as you came up with:
repeat = *DIGIT ["*" *DIGIT]
although that's not strictly speaking the same; the original repeat cannot match the empty string, but the replacement one can. (Since the only use of repeat in the grammar is optional, this doesn't make any practical difference.)
(Disclosure note: I am not a fan of PEG. So it's possible the above answer is not free of bias.)
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.
In ANTLR4, it seems that predicates can only be placed at the front of sub-rules in order for them to cause the sub-rule to be skipped. In my grammar, some predicates depend on a token that appears near the end of the sub-rule, with one or more rule invocations in front of it. For example:
date :
{isYear(_input.LT(3).getText())}?
month day=INTEGER year=INTEGER { ... }
In this particular example, I know that month is always one single token, so it is always Token 3 that needs to be checked by isYear(). In general, though, I won't know the number of tokens making up a rule like month until runtime. Is there a way to get its token count?
There is no built-in way to get the length of the rule programmatically. You could use the documentation for ATNState in combination with the _ATN field in your parser to calculate all paths through a rule - if all paths through the rule contain the same number of tokens the you have calculated the exact number of tokens used by the rule.
I recently read some of : https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570#section-1
And I found the following URL template examples :
GIVEN :
var="value";
x=1024;
path=/foo/bar;
{/var,x}/here /value/1024/here
{#path,x}/here #/foo/bar,1024/here
These seem contradictory.
In the first one, it appears that the / replaces ,
In the 2nd one, it appears that the , is kept .
Thus, I'm wondering wether there are inconsistencies in this particular RFC. I'm new to these RFC's so maybe I don't fully understand the culture behind how these develop.
There's no contradiction in those two examples. They illustrate the point that the rules for expanding an expression whose first character is / are different from the rules for expanding an expression whose first character is #. These alternative expansion rules are pretty much the entire point of having a variety of different magic leading characters -- which are called operators in the RFC.
The expression with the leading / is expanded according to a rule that says "each variable in the expression is replaced by its value, preceded by a / character". (I'm paraphrasing the real rule, which is described in section 3.2.6 of that RFC.) The expression with the leading # is expanded according to a rule that says "each variable in the expression is replaced by its value, with the first variable preceded by a # and subsequent variables preceded by a ,. (Again paraphrased, see section 3.2.4 for the real rule.)