I'm using whittle to parse a grammar, but I'm running into the classical LALR ambiguity problem. My grammar looks like this (simplified):
<comment> ::= '{' <string> '}' # string enclosed in braces
<tag> ::= '[' <name> <quoted-string> ']' # [tagname "tag value"]
<name> ::= /[A-Za-z_]+/ # subset of all printable chars
<quoted-string> ::= '"' <string> '"' # string enclosed in quotes
<string> ::= /[:print:]/ # regex for all printable chars
The problem, of course, is <string>. It contains all printable characters and is therefore very greedy. Since it's an LALR parser, it tries to parse a <name> as a <string> and everything breaks. The grammar complicates things because it uses different string delimiters for different things, which is why I tried to make the <string> rule in the first place.
Is there a canonical way to normalize this grammar to make it LALR compliant, if it's even possible?
This is not "the classical LALR ambiguity problem", whatever that might be. It is simply an error in the lexical specification of the language.
I took a quick glance at the Whittle readme, but it didn't bear any resemblance to the grammar in the OP. So I'm assuming that the text in the OP is conceptual rather than literal, and the fact that it includes the obviously incorrect
<string> ::= /[:print:]/ # regex for all printable chars
is just a typo.
Better would have been /[:print:]*/, assuming that Ruby lets you get away with [:print:] rather than the Posix-standard [[:print:]].
But that wouldn't be correct either because lexing (usually) matches the longest possible string, and consequently that will gobble up the closing quote and any following text.
So the correct solution for quoted-string is to write it out correctly:
<quoted-string> ::= /"[^"]*"/
or even
<quoted-string> :: /"([^\\"]|\\.)*"/
# any number of characters other than quote or escape, or escaped pairs
You might have other ideas about how to escape internal double quotes; those are just examples. In both cases, you need to postprocess the token in order to (at least) strip the double-quotes and possible interpret escape sequences. That's just the way it goes.
Your comment sequences present a more difficult issue, assuming that your intention was that a comment might include nested braces (eg. {This comment {with this} ends here}) because the nested brace syntax is not regular and thus cannot be matched with a regular expression. Of course, very few "regular expression" libraries are really regular these days, and I don't know if Ruby contains some sort of brace-counting extension, like for example Lua's pattern syntax. The nested brace syntax is certainly context-free but to actually parse it you need to lexically analyze the contents of the outer {...} in a different way than the rest of the program.
It is this latter observation, and not any weakness in the LALR algorithm, that is causing you pain, and I'd say that this is a weakness with the (mostly undocumented afaics) lexical analysis section of whittle. In a flex-generated lexer, for example, it would be normal to use start conditions to separate the lexical environments (program / quoted string / braced comment), and the parser would then have no ambiguity.
Hope that helps.
Related
Is there any built-in tag for block, line or in-line comments for the parser generator?
e.g.
comment blocks "(*" Exp "*)" or inline comments "//" Exp.
In a parser generator like menhir, I would normally handle comments by pattern matching with the lexer, so comments wouldn't be part of the AST. Is there an equivalent in K?
If not, what is the recommended way of implementing comments?
You can declare the builtin sort #Layout to be the concatenation via pipes of a set of regular expression terminals (i.e., r"//[^\\n]*"). Any tokens which lex as one of these tokens are simply discarded by the lexer and the parser does not even see them. Note that this applies only to parsing terms using a generated parser or kast; parsing rules in .k files will still require the usual K syntax for comments.
Note that this is also how whitespace is parsed, so unless your language is whitespace sensitive, make sure to include in #Layout any whitespace characters which you want the parser to ignore.
So i am writing a small language and i am using antlrv4 as my tool. Antlr autogenerates lexer and parser files when u compile your grammar file(.g4). I am using javac btw. I want my language to have no semicolons and the way i want to do this is: if there is an identifier or ")" as the last token in a line, the lexer will automatically put the semicolon(Similar to what "go" language does). How would i approach something like this? There are other things like ATN(which i think is augmented transition network) and dfa(which i think is deterministic finite automaton) in the lexer file which i don't understand or how they relate to the lexing process?. Any help is appreciated. (btw i am still working on the grammar file so i don't have that fully completed).
Several points here: the ATN and the DFA are internal structures for parser + lexer and not something you would touch to change parsing behavior. Also, it's not clear to me why you want to have the lexer insert a semicolon at some point. What exactly do you want to accomplish by that (don't say: to make semicolons optional in the parser, I mean the underlying reason).
If you want to accept a command without a trailing semicolon you can make that optional:
assignment: simpleAssignment | complexAssignment SEMI?;
The parser will give you the content of the assignment rule regardless whether there is a trailing semicolon or not. Is that what you want?
I am writing a parser for Wolfram Language. The language has a concept of "named characters", which are specified by a name delimited by \[, and ]. For example: \[Pi].
Suppose I want to specify a regular expression for an identifier. Identifiers can include named characters. I see two ways to do it: one is to have a preprocessor that would convert all named characters to their unicode representation, and two is to enumerate all possible named characters in their source form as part of the regular expression.
The second approach does not seem feasible because there are a lot of named characters. I would prefer to have ranges of unicode characters in my regex.
So I want to preprocess my token stream. In other words, it seems to me that the lexer needs to check if the named characters syntax is correct and then look up the name and convert it to unicode.
But if the syntax is incorrect or the name does not exist I need to tell the user about it. How do I propagate this error to the user and yet let antlr4 recover from the error and resume? Maybe I can sort of "pipe" lexers/parsers? (I am new to antlr).
EDIT:
In Wolfram Language I can have this string as an identifier: \[Pi]Squared. The part between brackets is called "named character". There is a limited set of named characters, each of which corresponds to a unicode code point. I am trying to figure out how to tokenize identifiers like this.
I could have a rule for my token like this (simplified to just a combination of named characters and ASCII characters):
NAME : ('\\[' [a-z]+ ']'|[a-zA-Z])+ ;
but I would like to check if the named character actually exists (and other attributes such as if it is a letter, but the latter part is outside of the scope of the question), so this regex won't work.
I considered making a list of allowed named characters and just making a long regex that enumerates all of them, but this seems ugly.
What would be a good approach to this?
END OF EDIT
A common approach is to write the lexer/parser to allow syntactically correct input and defer semantic issues to the analysis of the generated parse tree. In this case, the lexer can naively accept named characters:
NChar : NCBeg .? RBrack ;
fragment NCBeg : '\\[' ;
fragment LBrack: '[' ;
fragment RBrack: ']' ;
Update
In the parser, allow the NChar's to exist in the parse-tree as discrete terminal nodes:
idents : ident+ ;
ident : NChar // named character string
| ID // simple character string?
| Literal // something quoted?
| ....
;
This makes analysis of the parse tree considerably easier: each ident context will contain only one non-null value for a discretely identifiable alt; and isolates analysis of all ordering issues to the idents context.
Update2
For an input \[Pi]Squared, the parse tree form that would be easiest to analyze would be an idents node with two well-ordered children, \[Pi] and Squared.
Best practice would not be to pack both children into the same token - would just have to later manually break the token text into the two parts to check if it is contains a valid named character and whether the particular sequence of parts is allowable.
No regex is going to allow conclusive verification of the named characters. That will require a list. Tightening the lexer definition of an NChar can, however, achieve a result equivalent to a regex:
NChar : NCBeg [A-Z][A-Za-z]+ RBrack ;
If the concern is that there might be a space after the named character, consider that this circumstance is likely better treated with a semantic warning as opposed to a syntactic error. Rather than skipping whitespace in the lexer, put the whitespace on the hidden channel. Then, in the verification analysis of each idents context, check the hidden channel for intervening whitespace and issue a warning as appropriate.
----
A parse-tree visitor can then examine, validate, and warn as appropriate regarding unknown or misspelled named characters.
To do the validation in the parser, if more desirable, use a predicated rule to distinguish known from unknown named characters:
#members {
ArrayList<String> keyList = .... // list of named chars
public boolean inList(String id) {
return keyList.contains(id) ;
}
}
nChar : known
| unknown
;
known : NChar { inList($NChar.getText()) }? ;
unknown : NChar { error("Unknown " + $NChar.getText()); } ;
The inList function could implement a distance metric to detect misspellings, but correcting the text directly in the parse-tree is a bit complex. Easier to do when implemented as a parse-tree decoration during a visitor operation.
Finally, a scrape and munge of the named characters into a usable map (both unicode and ascii) is likely worthwhile to handle both representations as well as conversions and misspelling.
I'm writing a regular expression in Objective-C.
The escape sequence \w is illegal and emits a warning, so the regular expression /\w/ must be written as #"\\w"; the escape sequence \? is valid, apparently, and doesn't emit a warning, so the regular expression /\?/ must be written as #"\\?" (i.e., the backslash must be escaped).
Question marks aren't invisible like \t or \n, so why is \? a valid escape sequence?
Edit: To clarify, I'm not asking about the quantifier, I'm asking about a string escape sequence. That is, this doesn't emit a warning:
NSString *valid = #"\?";
By contrast, this does emit a warning ("Unknown escape sequence '\w'"):
NSString *invalid = #"\w";
It specifies a literal question mark. It is needed because of a little-known feature called trigraphs, where you can write a three-character sequence starting with question marks to substitute another character. If you have trigraphs enabled, in order to write "??" in a string, you need to write it as "?\?" in order to prevent the preprocessor from trying to read it as the beginning of a trigraph.
(If you're wondering "Why would anybody introduce a feature like this?": Some keyboards or character sets didn't include commonly used symbols like {. so they introduced trigraphs so you could write ??< instead.)
? in regex is a quantifier, it means 0 or 1 occurences. When appended to the + or * quantifiers, it makes it "lazy".
For example, applying the regex o? to the string foo? would match o.
However, the regex o\? in foo? would match o?, because it is searching for a literal question mark in the string, instead of an arbitrary quantifier.
Applying the regex o*? to foo? would match oo.
More info on quantifiers here.
How to code grammar or lexer rule to describe JSP/EL identifier or string literal in ANTLR? Remember, that JSP/EL is Unicode and you cannot list all possible symbols in a rule. Also remember, that strings can contain EL expressions, which may be complex, so lexer is insufficient to describe them, parser is required, while ANTLR parser is unable to match character classes or any character.
Checkout the new "Lexical Modes":
Lexical Modes
Modes allow you to group lexical rules by context, such as inside and outside of XML tags. It’s like having multiple sublexers, one for context. The lexer can only return tokens matched by entering a rule in the current mode. Lexers start out in the so-called default mode. All rules are considered to be within the default mode unless you specify a mode command. Modes are not allowed within combined grammars, just lexer grammars.
-- http://www.antlr.org/wiki/display/ANTLR4/Lexer+Rules